NJRentAScooter v. AM Business Solutions LLC
Claim Number: FA0909001284557
PARTIES
Complainant is NJRentAScooter (“Complainant”), represented by Steven L
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rentascooternj.com>,
registered with GoDaddy.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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on September 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a
hard copy of the Complaint on September 16, 2009.
On September 16, 2009, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <rentascooternj.com>
domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name.
GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the
GoDaddy.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 September 18, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of October 8, 2009 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@rentascooternj.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October
15, 2009.
On October 22, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Both parties made Additional Submissions. Complainant’s Additional Submissions were
received after the deadline for
submissions and were determined to be deficient under The Forum
Supplemental Rule #7. It is within the
Panel’s sole discretion whether or not to consider those Additional Submissions
and in this case the Panel has chosen to consider them in reaching its Decision
[1].
Respondent’s Additional Submissions were received in a timely manner
according to Supplemental Rule #7.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that since November 2007 it has used the name and
common law trademark “NJ RENT A SCOOTER” in relation to its
Complainant’s business was advertised first in the Yellow Pages™ and through
local print-ads. In May 2008,
Complainant registered the domain name <njrentascooter.com>, developed a
website, and started online promotion of its services.
Complainant claims that by 2008 it was the leading provider of scooter
rental services in the
It is alleged that, in the knowledge of Complainant’s business, Respondent
established a competing business in
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the disputed domain name. In
particular, Complainant alleges Respondent has not been commonly known by the
disputed domain name prior to the rise of Complainant’s common law trademark
rights and that Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise
permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name
including the trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed
domain name in bad faith. In particular,
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name
“is an attempt to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its Mark in the
Disputed Domain and so violates the UDRP”.
Complainant also claims that “Respondent registered the Disputed Domain
with knowledge that Complainant had common law trademark rights in the Disputed
Domain. Respondent registered the
Disputed Domain for the purpose of confusing Complainant’s customers, diverting
traffic intended for Complainant, and depriving Complainant of use of the
Disputed Domain and its Mark online.”
B. Respondent
Respondent submits that Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain
name are generic since they are composed of the same, purely
descriptive/geographical terms.
Respondent alleges that Complainant has no exclusive right to those
terms and therefore has no relevant trademark rights.
Additionally, Respondent is critical of Complainant’s claim to common
law rights in NJ RENT A SCOOTER said to be established through use and
reputation of the trademark. Respondent
contends that Complainant’s use of NJ RENT A SCOOTER over the past two years
has been insufficient to prove secondary trademark meaning in an otherwise
descriptive and non-distinctive term.
Moreover, Respondent contends that an affiliate business of Respondent
has operated its motor scooter rental business in the
C. Additional Submissions
The Additional Submissions of both parties were fully taken into
account by the Panel and are referred to where required in the Discussion which
follows.
FINDINGS
Both parties conduct a business in, inter alia, motor scooter
rental.
Complainant conducts its business under the trademark “NJRentAScooter”.
Respondent conducts its business under the trademark “RentAScooterNJ”.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 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 and is
being used in bad faith.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires a two-fold enquiry. First, a threshold investigation of whether a
complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the
trade mark and the domain name are identical or confusingly similar.
If Complainant here can show that it has
trademark rights in NJ RENT A SCOOTER then there is no doubt that the domain
name <rentascooternj.com> is
confusingly similar to the trade mark[2].
Respondent alleges that the trademark is
composed of generic terms which Complainant has not monopolized. A respondent’s registration and use of a
generic domain name is generally regarded by former panels as a factor to be
considered under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and/or 4(a)(iii). Nonetheless, if the term in which a
complainant asserts trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is plainly composed
of generic terms, then a panel will more closely scrutinize the evidence said
to prove that trademark has acquired secondary meaning through use and
reputation[3].
Complainant alleges that it:
has rented thousands of
scooters to individuals in the
Respondent asserts that these are largely
self-serving claims for which there is no persuasive evidence. Respondent points to Complainant’s own
evidence that it was formed in November 2007 under the name, “Educated Mind
Investments”. Respondent argues that
Complainant’s trademark NJ RENT A SCOOTER was not used in
The Panel has admitted Complainant’s
Additional Submissions however they do not to rebut those claims, nor provide
further or better evidence of the use of the trademark or of the renown of
Complainant’s business. Instead, the
Complainant states:
Complainant has submitted a plethora of evidence in support of its rights and chronology, including photographs of vehicles and customers, business filings, domain registration dates, declarations, traffic figures, billing summaries and invoices, rental agreements, and screenshots.
Accordingly, the Panel returns to the
Complaint and to its own assessment of the evidence of reputation of the
trademark.
The Panel notes, first, that Complainant company’s
principal, Edwin Devia, has made an unsworn statement in support of the
Complaint. The Panel gives that
statement due weight. Mr. Devia states
that he started a motor scooter rental business “in early 2007” and that in
November of that year he “formally organized as a single-member limited
liability company” and that he “filed a DBA registration with the State of New
Jersey Division of Revenue”.
Supporting documents show the incorporation
of a
The Complaint includes a screenshot of
Complainant’s website. The screenshot is not of the website homepage but of a
drilldown page for “NJRENTASCOOTER”. The
page clearly shows the trademark and some of the services offered. The Panel notes however that the page also
contains a copyright notice, as follows:
©
COPYRIGHT 2009 NJRentAScooter, LLC.
There is no other evidence of a company by
the name of NJRentAScooter, LLC.
The evidence further includes images of motor
scooters and a pickup truck bearing livery which includes the trademark in
proximity to a stylized image of a motorcycle.
The images are undated.
There is an American Express™ “Merchant
Financial Activity Statement” for the month of June 2009 showing a total value
transacted of US$510.00. A breakdown
shows 4 transactions during the period May 28 2009 to June 27 2009.
Further financial statements are to accounts
in the name of Edwin Devia which cannot be clearly linked to the motor scooter
rental business. The trademark does not
appear on those documents.
The Complaint exhibits a copy of rental
agreement terms and conditions. This
document carries the trademark. Finally,
there are exhibited copies of several credit card transaction slips, in many
instances illegible to the Panel in their detail.
In its Additional Submissions, Complainant
states:
Complainant (sic.) submits that the Mark NJRentAScooter is generic. Numerous other marks that involve more generic terms are regularly found to be distinct and protected by the NAF, WIPO, the USPTO and other authorities, including many involved in recent domain names disputes before the NAF such as UKHouseClearances, LumberLiquidators, DollarCarRental, NationalCarRental, Beirut, and Fbomb.
Complainant does not provide references to the aforementioned NAF cases and the Panel has not gone in search of them. Suffice to say that the broad statement that “numerous other marks that involve more generic terms are regularly found to be distinct and protected by the NAF, WIPO, the USPTO and other authorities” requires serious qualification. Detailed consideration of the registrability criteria of trademarks filed with the USPTO is outside the scope of the Panel’s mandate. Nonetheless, the Panel points out that neither the USPTO, nor many other national trademark registration authorities, will accept purely descriptive trademarks for registration without substantial pre-filing evidence of use of the trademark.
Panelists with
WIPO and NAF have sometimes approached the issue of proof of trademark “rights”
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in a slightly
more relaxed manner than does the USPTO when it requires proof of secondary
meaning, however the guidelines and standards which have developed under
trademark practice regarding proof of acquired distinctiveness have been
largely adopted by those applying this Policy[4].
Complainant did not come into being until
November 2007. Even if the Panel takes
into account material dated earlier in time which shows use of the trademark NJ
RENT A SCOOTER and attributes that use to Complainant – something it is not
strictly required to do – there is still little more than a two year period
over which Complainant was using the trademark.
The trademark is utterly descriptive. With extensive, well documented proof of use,
Complainant would still struggle to establish common law rights in such a term
over such a period of time. As it is,
the evidence said to support Complainant’s trademark rights is flawed and
insubstantial. It falls hopelessly short
of the material this Panel would need to see in order to find that Complainant
enjoyed common law rights in the trademark.
For these reasons, Complainant has not
surmounted the first hurdle in proving its case and had failed to show rights
in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
No findings required[5].
DECISION
Having failed to establish one of the three elements required under the
ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
November 4, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum
[1] Complainant’s representative wrote to The Forum stating that “we did not have the Response formally served on us by the Forum in the above-referenced case, and were not notified that it had been officially filed with the Forum. We did receive an emailed notice from the Respondent that it would be filed, but were not aware that it actually had been.” Whilst it seems to this Panel unlikely that The Forum failed to communicate the Response to the Complainant, the factual matrix of this case justifies admission of the deficient Additional Submissions.
[2] The gTLD is to be ignored since it adds no distinctiveness to the domain name. The fact that “nj” appears at the end of the domain name but is the initial integer of the trademark is inconsequential. See Playboy Enters. v. Movie Name Co., D2001-1201 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2002) (finding the domain name <channelplayboy.com> confusingly similar to the mark THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Herrington Hart, NIRT, FA 464790 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 1, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the use of transposed words, similar to transposed letters does not suffice to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark to create a separate and distinct mark.”). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
[3] See
generally, WIPO Overview of WIPO
Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview.
[4] See Winterson v. Hogarth,
D2000-0235 (WIPO May 22, 2000), finding that the Policy does not require that a
complainant’s trademark be registered by a government authority or agency in
order for the complainant to establish rights in the mark provided common law
rights can be shown. See
[5] See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002), finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary; see also Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2006), deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).