national arbitration forum

DECISION

Freightliner LLC v. LaPorte Holdings Inc.

Claim Number:  FA0411000371766

PARTIES

Complainant is Freightliner LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Chanley T. Howell, of Foley & Lardner LLP, One Independent Drive, Suite 1300, Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017.  Respondent is LaPorte Holdings Inc. (“Respondent”), 2202 S. Figueroa St., Suite 721, Los Angeles, CA 90023.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <acessfreightliner.com>, registered with Nameking.com, 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.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 24, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2004.

On November 29, 2004, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <acessfreightliner.com> is registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameking.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameking.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On December 7, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 27, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@acessfreightliner.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On January 4, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <acessfreightliner.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <acessfreightliner.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <acessfreightliner.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Freightliner LLC, is the leading North American truck and specialty vehicle manufacturer.  Complainant has registered numerous marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including FREIGHTLINER (Reg. No. 583,277), FREIGHTLINER CENTURY CLASS (Reg. No. 2,034,349), FREIGHTLINER SERVICELINK (Reg. No. 2,059,949) and FREIGHTLINER SERVICEPOINT (Reg. No. 2,484,398).  Complainant has operated a website at the <accessfreightliner.com> domain name since February 8, 2002.  Complainant uses the ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark on letterhead, business cards, advertising brochures and other advertising and marketing materials.  Complainant spends substantial amounts of time, money and resources marketing and promoting the ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark.

Respondent registered the <acessfreightliner.com> domain name on February 28, 2003.  Respondent’s domain name resolves to a portal website that features links to competing trucking and truck-related websites.

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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

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

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

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark, despite the fact that Complainant has not registered this particular mark with any trademark authority.  See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”).

Complainant’s mark has gained secondary meaning through its use as a domain name since February 8, 2002 and through Complainant’s aggressive marketing and promotion of the mark.  Thus, Complainant has effectively established common-law rights in the ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark.  See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”).

Respondent’s <acessfreightliner.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark but for the deletion of one of the letters “c” in the word “access.”  Such minor change is insufficient to negate a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint.  Therefore, the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003) (finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a panel to accept all of complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences as true); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the failure to respond to a complaint allows a panel to make reasonable inferences in favor of a complainant and accept complainant’s allegations as true).

In addition, the Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an admission that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true.”).

Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the mark precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Moreover, Respondent has used the <acessfreightliner.com> domain name to direct Internet users to competing truck manufacturers and truck-related websites.  Such competing use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (“[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the same business.”); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and using it to market competing truck manufacturers and truck-related websites.  See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

Furthermore, Respondent is capitalizing on the goodwill of the ACCESSFREIGHTLINER.COM mark by using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website featuring links to competing truck manufacturers and truck-related websites.  Since the disputed domain name contains a confusingly similar version of Complainant’s mark, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website.  The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for redirecting Internet users to these competing websites.  Therefore, Respondent’s opportunistic use of the disputed domain name represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <acessfreightliner.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  January 17, 2005

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2005/109.html