DECISION

Television Broadcasts Limited v. Steven Goren

Claim Number: FA0402000236576

PARTIES

Complainant is Television Broadcasts Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Karen Po Yee Wan, TVB City, 77 Chun Choi Street, Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate, Kowloon, Hong Kong.  Respondent is Steven Goren, (“Respondent”), 32840 Robinhood, Beverly Hills, Michigan 48025.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <tvb.us>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Richard Hill as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on February 10, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 10, 2004.

On February 10, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <tvb.us> is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On February 20, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 11, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).

A timely Response was received on March 4, 2004.  The Response was not signed.

On March 18, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.

On March 18, 2004, pursuant to Rule 12 of the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, the Panel requested the Respondent to submit a complete, signed, Response no later than March 25, 2004. 

A complete, signed Response was received on March 24, 2004.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark and service mark “TVB.”  This mark was first registered in Hong Kong in 1992, and subsequently registered elsewhere in the world after 1995.

Complainant, Television Broadcasts Limited, commonly known as TVB, is the first wireless commercial television station in Hong Kong. It was first established in 1967. The principal activities of Complainant are television broadcasting, program production and other broadcasting related activities such as program licensing, video rental distribution and satellite broadcasting, etc. It is the largest producer of Chinese language programming in the world. Many of its Chinese programs are dubbed into other languages and are distributed to more than 30 countries.

Complainant’s name and trademark have been well known worldwide. Respondent, residing in U.S., where Complainant’s video programs have been distributed for rental throughout North America and where Complainant, through its subsidiary, has launched extensive television broadcasting services in the U.S., should have learnt about Complainant and its mark “TVB” before Respondent acquired the domain name in dispute. As far as Complainant is aware, Respondent uses the domain name in dispute to direct Internet users to a site at <memorymovie.com>.  Respondent has not provided any services or products or conducted any business related to “TVB” and Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute.

Complainant believes that by registering and using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

B. Respondent

The domain name in dispute is identical to the acronym “TVB,” which stands for “The Very Best.” Respondent’s minor son, Robert Goren, created the entity “The Very Best” in 1994. This easily recognizable name has served to identify the many projects Robert Goren has produced.

Respondent has legitimate rights to the phrase “TVB” as his minor son’s enterprises have been commonly known by said name for ten (10) years. Complainant wrongfully alleges that Respondent has not provided any services or products or conducted any business related to “TVB,” as disputed by Annexes I-V.  It is an ongoing business that has produced many computer-assisted productions over the last decade under the identity of “The Very Best.”

Complainant’s accusations of Respondent operating in bad faith are false and totally unwarranted. At no point has Respondent or Respondent’s son attempted following actions that may define bad faith:

1. Attempting to deceitfully attract Complainant’s customers.

2. Attempting to sell the domain name to Complainant for profit.

3. Attempting to hinder Complainant’s ability to market itself.

Rather, all materials associated with <tvb.us> are the unmistakable product of Respondent’s son Robert Goren’s hard work and ingenuity. Complainant has blindly alleged bad faith in order to bully Respondent.  Complainant has done nothing more than make accusations without support.  The accusations have now been rebutted. Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof.

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the registered mark TVB.

Respondent’s minor son has been using the mark “TVB” for various enterprises since 1994.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The contested domain name is identical to Respondent’s mark TVB.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has presented ample evidence to the effect that his minor son’s enterprises have been known as “TVB” for several years.  Some of those enterprises are of a commercial nature, for example, creation of websites.

Thus the Panel finds that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the contested domain name.  See Modern Props, Inc. v. Wallis, FA 152458 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s operation of a bona fide business of online prop rentals for over two years was evidence that Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Bankinter S.A. v. BI Fin. Inc., D2000-0460 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (“By September 1999, when first approached by the Complainant, the Respondent or its predecessors had used the <bankinternet.com> website for almost 4 years, thus demonstrating ‘a bona fide offering of goods and services’”).

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the contested domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.

But Complainant does not present any evidence to support this allegation.

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to bad faith registration or use.

DECISION

The Complaint is dismissed.

Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/534.html