Prof. Ivo Pitanguy v. Pitanguy Plastic
Surgical Clinic
Claim
Number: FA0310000205125
Complainant is Prof. Ivo Pitanguy (“Complainant”), represented
by Lawrence V. Molnar, of CMG Wworldwide, Inc. 10500 Crosspoint Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN
46256. Respondent is Pitanguy Plastic Surgical Clinic (“Respondent”),
2-15 Nonhyun-Dong, Kangnam-Ku, Seoul, 135-010, South Korea.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <pitanguy.com>, registered with Network
Solutions, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on October 24, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 27, 2003.
On
October 28, 2003, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <pitanguy.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
October 29, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
November 18, 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@pitanguy.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
November 25, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr.,
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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <pitanguy.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s PITANGUY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <pitanguy.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <pitanguy.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent failed to submit a Response
in this proceeding.
Claimant, Dr.
Ivo Pitanguy, is a plastic surgeon living and practicing in Brazil. He is a well-known physician in his
field—plastic surgery techniques are named after him—and he provides services
for the affluent and famous. He is also
the director of the Ivo Pitanguy Clinic, a private institution that has
operated in Brazil for over 30 years.
He is the head professor of the Post-Graduate Medical School of the
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janerio and the Carlos Chagas
Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Studies.
Ivo Pitanguy has written over 800 publications, including Brazilian and
Foreign journals. Complainant has
registered and uses the <pitanguy.com.br> domain name.
Respondent is
affiliated with a plastic surgery clinic in South Korea. Complainant alleges that a former student
operates the South Korean clinic.
Respondent registered the <pitanguy.com> domain name on May
15, 2002.
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.
Complainant
asserts that it holds trademark rights in PITANGUY. Although Complainant’s mark is not registered, the Policy does
not require that a mark be registered in order to make out prima facie claim. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN Policy is “broad in scope”
in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant
has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not
required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will
suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy); see also
British Broadcasting 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”).
As Respondent
has not contested Complainant’s asserted rights in PITANGUY, the Panel accepts
Complainant’s assertion as true and finds that Complainant holds rights in the
mark. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt.,
Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000)
(holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences
of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235 (WIPO
May 22, 2000) (finding that the ICANN Policy does not require that Complainant
have rights in a registered trademark and that it is sufficient to show common
law rights in holding that Complainant has common law rights to her name).
Respondent’s domain name <pitanguy.com> is identical to Complainant’s mark
PITANGUY. The only difference is the
addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name, which is
not significant. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493
(WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s
mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name
POMELLATO is not relevant); see also 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <pitanguy.com> domain name is
identical to Complainant’s PITANGUY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is
using the Complainant’s identical mark to offer competitive services.
Respondent’s use
of the PITANGUY mark in its domain neither a bona fide offering of goods or
services nor constitutes fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct.
2, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that
diverted Internet users to Respondent’s competing website through the use of
Complainant’s mark); see also MBS Computers Ltd. v. Workman, FA 96632 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2001)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests when Respondent is using a domain
name identical to Complainant’s mark and is offering similar services).
Although
Respondent uses Complainant’s mark in its WHOIS name, it is not commonly known
by Complainant’s mark. See Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc. v. Neiman-Marcus, FA 135048 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13,
2003) (noting that “Complainant has
established itself as the sole holder of all rights and legitimate interests in
the NEIMAN MARCUS mark,” in holding that Respondent was not commonly known by
the <neiman-marcus.net> name, despite naming
itself “Neiman-Marcus” in its WHOIS contact information); see also Yoga
Works, Inc. v. Arpita d/b/a Shanti Yoga Works, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that Respondent was not
“commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite
listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information
because there was “no affirmative evidence
before the Panel that Respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed
domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using the
disputed domain name. Respondent
attempted to mislead Internet users by incorporating the Complainant’s mark
into its domain name. By doing so, the
Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it
is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed
domain names without creating a false impression of association with the
Complainant”); see also Reuters
Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (Respondent
demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s
famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception
and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).
Respondent had
knowledge of Complainant, its medical procedures and style, and its practice.
Because of its connections with the Complainant, the Panel can infer that
Respondent used Complaint’s mark for the primary purpose of disrupting
Complainant’s business. This
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 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 Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters.,
FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2003) (finding evidence of bad faith use and registration where Respondent and
Complainant both operated in the highly regulated field of radio broadcasting
and Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s call
letters).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <pitanguy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
December 8, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page