Peter
Wolters of America, Inc. v. Teodoro Marena
Claim
Number: FA0201000104124
PARTIES
Complainant is Peter Wolters of America, Inc.,
Plainville, MA (“Complainant”) represented by Jaren D. Wilcoxson, of Goodwin
Procter LLP. Respondent is Teodoro Marena, East Hartford, CT
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at
issue is <peterwolters.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, 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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted
a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on January
28, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 4, 2002.
On February 1, 2002, Network
Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <peterwolters.com> is registered
with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 February 4, 2002, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 25, 2002 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@peterwolters.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 Forum transmitted to the parties a
Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 8, 2002,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the
communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the
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 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
<peterwolters.com> is identical to Complainant’s PETER WOLTERS trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
No formal Response was
received, but Respondent submited correspondence indicating that it is willing
to comply with Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name.
FINDINGS
Complainant
is a manufacturer and seller of precision abrasive machining systems, both in
the United States and throughout the world.
Complainant has been operating continuously under the PETER WOLTERS name
since 1804 selling carding sets, tools, auxiliary equipment for the textiles
industry, as well as precision abrasive machining systems.
Complainant
advertises its “consumables,” materials for use in connection with precision
machining systems, as well as its other products and machines at numerous trade
shows and journals throughout the world.
Since 1997, Complainant has promoted its business at
<peter-wolters.com>. Due to its aggressive
marketing and advertising, the PETER WOLTERS name has become well known throughout
the world.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on February 12, 2001. Respondent is in the business of
manufacturing and selling consumable materials, including lapping plates (which
are the same as Complainant’s work piece carriers) that can be used as
substitute parts for Complainant’s “consumables.” Respondent is therefore, a direct competitor. Respondent’s <peterwolters.com> domain
name initially projected the title “ Welcome to peterwolters.com”, and
contained a link to Respondent’s own website.
After receiving a cease and desist letter from Complainant, Respondent
changed the title to “Welcome to Marena Industries,” and added a disclaimer
indicating that Respondent and Complainant are not affiliated. Finally, in a letter dated February 13, 2002
Respondent indicated that it would be willing to transfer the disputed domain
name to Complainant and that it had allowed the registration to lapse.
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 the 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 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; and
(2) the 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 common law rights to
the PETER WOLTERS mark due to its continuous use of the mark since 1804.
Respondent’s <peterwolters.com>
domain name is identical to
Complainant’s website because it incoporates the mark in its entirety, merely
adding the “.com” top-level domain name.
See Blue Sky
Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000)
(holding that the domain name ROBOHELP.COM is identical to complainant’s
registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a
distinguishing difference"); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22,
2000) (finding that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD)
name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required
of domain name registrants").
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Because
Respondent has not submitted a Response in this proceeding, Respondent is
presumed to have no rights or 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been
satisfied.
Respondent’s
registration and use of the disputed domain name to divert Complainant’s
customers, and ultimately sales, to Respondent’s domain name by creating
Internet user confusion indicates bad faith registration and use. See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO
Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between
Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain
name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user
confusion); see also Southern
Exposure v. Southern 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).
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 the requested relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly,
it is Ordered that the domain name <peterwolters.com>
be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
March 11, 2002
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page