McLaughlin Gormley King Company v. NA
a/k/a Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA0301000139716
PARTIES
Complainant
is McLaughlin Gormley King Company,
Golden Valley, MN (“Complainant”) represented by Stephen R. Baird, of Fish
& Richardson P.C., P.A.
Respondent is NA a/k/a Domain Administrator, LIC, NY (“Respondent”) represented by Ari Goldberger, of ESQwire.com Law Firm.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <mgk.net>,
registered with ENOM, INC.
PANEL
The
undersigned, David P. Miranda, Esq. 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on January 2, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 3, 2003.
On
January 3, 2003, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <mgk.net> is registered
with ENOM, INC. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. ENOM, INC. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the ENOM, 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
January 8, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 28,
2003 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@mgk.net by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 28, 2003.
Complainant’s
additional submission was received on February 3, 2003 and Respondent’s
additional submission was received on February 10, 2003. All submissions were received in a timely
manner in accordance with the Forum’s Supplemental Rule #7 and were considered
for the purposes of this decision.
On February 12, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed David P.
Miranda, Esq. as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name <mgk.net> be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
Complainant is a chemical company doing business in the United States for over
one hundred years. In 1957, Complainant
obtained a trademark registration for the mark MGK, indicating a date of first
use dating back to 1920. Since then,
Complainant has obtained five additional federal trademark registrations
consisting of or containing the letter combination MGK. Complainant contends that the domain at
issue, <mgk.net> is identical to its registered trademarks. Complainant further contends that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interest in the <mgk.net> domain, and
it is not using the domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services, is
not known by the letters mgk, has no intellectual property rights to mgk and
has no legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and used the <mgk.net>
domain name in bad faith because Respondent had constructive notice of
Complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the MGK mark, Respondent has
failed to provide complete and accurate information to the Registrar of the
domain name, and has provided no organization name, no individual name, no
telephone number, no fax number or email address, and in the space allotted for
secondary address, Respondent entered the words “domain available for sale”. After Respondent received notification of
this proceeding, it made an attempt to correct the contact information. In addition, Complainant contends that
Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith because
Respondent solicits offers to sell the domain name for more than $1,000, an
amount in excess of its out-of-pocket costs.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
stipulates that the disputed domain is identical to Complainant’s
trademark. Respondent contends that it
has a legitimate business interest in the disputed domain name because of its
use to promote various web sites it operates and generates advertising
revenue. Respondent also contends that
it did not register the domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks,
but rather chose the domain because the three letter combination sounds like
the word “magic”. The Respondent
further contends that the three letter combination mgk is a common term with
substantial third party use.
C.
Additional Submissions
An
additional submission of Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in a
pattern of cybersquating activity by registering domain names that incorporate
the famous trademarks of others.
Complainant contends that Respondent has attempted to hide this pattern
of cybersquating activity by providing false and incomplete contact information
in its domain name registrations.
Complainant further contends that Respondent providing links to third
party web sites and offering the domain name for sale to the general public is
not a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent
submits an additional submission in which it does not dispute ownership of
various domain names cited by Complainant, but rather contends that its
registration and use of domain names containing the trademarks of others is
permissible. However, Respondent
provides no proof that any of the trademark holders identified have authorized
Respondent’s use. Respondent further
admits that it provided incorrect contact information to the Registrant for the
purposes of sheltering its personal identity.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established that the
domain name <mgk.net> is identical to its federally registered
trademarks, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <mgk.net> and that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name is in bad
faith, thus warranting transfer of <mgk.net> to Complainant.
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 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 and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Respondent stipulates that the domain
name <mgk.net> is identical to Complainant’s trademarks.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant
contends that as of January 2, 2003 the <mgk.net> domain name
directed visitors to a website that merely offered the domain name registration
for sale for $1,000. Respondent’s
offering of the <mgk.net> domain name for sale does not confer
rights or legitimate interests in Respondent’s favor. See J. Paul Getty
Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000)
(finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use
of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to
sell the domain names for profit); Such conduct is evidence of Respondent’s bad
faith. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000)
(finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it
has no legitimate use).
Complainant
asserts that Respondent placed links to third-party websites on the website
that solicits the sale of the registration rights in the <mgk.net>
domain name, which Respondent presumably profits from. Such use does not represent rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain
name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the
domain name); see also Big Dog
Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no
legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks).
Finally, Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the <mgk.net> domain name because it is
not commonly known by the domain name. See
Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store,
FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also
Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.,
FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name
or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use). Respondent’s claim that it registered
mgk.net because “mgk” sounds like “magic” is “more amusing than credible.” Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s
Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 499 (2d Cir. 2000) (rejecting contention that
<sportys.com> domain name was a derivation of the registrant’s childhood
dog “Spotty”).
Complainant
contends that Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s interests
in the MGK mark because the mark is registered on the Principal Register of
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
See Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd.
P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161
F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a Principal Register
registration [of a trademark or service mark] is constructive notice of a claim
of ownership so as to eliminate any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to
15 U.S.C. § 1072); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Jeff Blume,
FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is
listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers
constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any
confusingly similar variation thereof”).
Respondent’s
offer to sell the <mgk.net> domain name registration for $1,000
represents bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Banca Popolare
Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad
faith where the Respondent offered the domain names for sale); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago,
D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent offered
the domain names for sale); see also World
Wrestling Fed’n Entmt., Inc. v. Bosman,
D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in
bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration
in excess of any out of pocket costs).
Respondent’s refusal to sell the domain name to the Complainant is not
sufficient to rebut proof of its solicitations to the general public.
Respondent
failed to provide complete and accurate WHOIS information, including
organization name or individual name and no telephone, fax or email
information. The contact information
that Respondent provided was an email address under the administrative and
technical contact heading, and the notation “domain available for sale.” Incomplete, false or misleading WHOIS
information is evidence of bad faith. See
Video Direct Distrib. Inc. v. Video
Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that
Respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the
registrar regarding the owner of the registered name); see also Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger &
QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that use of false
registration information constitutes bad faith); see also Amherst LLC d/b/a Amherst Corp. Sales &
Solutions v. IFC Corp, FA 96768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3, 2001) (finding bad
faith because Respondent used a fictitious corporate front when registering the
domain name and continued to evade identification through use of inaccurate
contact information).
Finally,
Respondent has a history of registering domain names reflecting well-known
trademarks, such as, inter alia, STAR WARS, TOYOTA, HONDA, VOLVO,
CHEVROLET, and JEEP. This is further
evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. See
General Elec. Co. v. Forddirect.com, Inc.,
D2000-0394 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that the Respondent registered and
used the domain name in bad faith by using the domain name to direct users to a
general site offering the domain name for sale).
DECISION
The panel determines that the domain name
<mgk.net> shall be transferred to Complainant. The Respondent Domain Administrator and
Jerry Stevens and Registrar ENOM are ordered and directed to transfer <mgk.net> to Complainant McLaughlin, Gormley, King Company.
David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 26, 2003
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page