Qwest Communications International, Inc.
v. DiscountQwest.com c/o Steven Chase
Claim Number: FA0312000223006
PARTIES
Complainant
is Qwest Communications International,
Inc., Denver, CO (“Complainant”) represented by Anthony J. Malutta, Esq., of Townsend and Townsend
and Crew LLP, Two Embarcadero
Center, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. Respondent is
DiscountQwest.com c/o Steven Chase, P.O. Box 46671, Tampa, FL
33647 (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <discountqwest.com>,
registered with Register.com.
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.
P-E
H Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on December 31, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on December 31, 2003.
On
January 6, 2004, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <discountqwest.com> is
registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Register.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Register.com 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 6, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 26,
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@discountqwest.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 23, 2004.
An
Additional Submission from the Respondent was received by the Forum on February
3, 2004. This Additional Submission does not comply with the Forum’s
Supplemental Rule 7 and will therefore not be considered by the Panel.
On February 2, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed P-E H Petter
Rindforth as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The
Complainant is one of the largest international telecommunication service
companies in the world and serves more than 30 million customers in the United
States and abroad. The company
completes over 240 million phone calls and carries 600 million e-mails daily
just in its local phone service area.
Globally, the Complainant also offers web hosting services, managed
solutions, high-speed Internet access, private networks, wireless data and
other technologies and applications that enable global communications.
Complainant
has been operating under the fanciful QWEST name and mark in the United States
since 1981 and now owns more than 385
active QWEST trademark applications and registrations in more than 48 countries
worldwide – among them is Registration Number 1,966,694 issued in the US on
April 9, 1996.
Complainant
states that it has successfully enforced its trademark rights against numerous
infringers and that this is a straightforward case of cybersquatting involving
a famous trademark and name, QWEST, registered by a company purportedly doing
business as Chase Communications.
In
selecting the domain name, Respondent has simply added the generic term
“discount” to Complainant’s QWEST mark.
This generic term does not
distinguish the domain name from the mark under the Policy. Respondent is using
the domain name in connection with telecommunication services that are
identical to those that are provided by the Complainant, however the use of the QWEST mark has no bona fide connection to Respondent’s
business.
The Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not authorized to
use any of Complainant’s trademarks. Nonetheless, Respondent’s website leaves
Internet users with the impression that Respondent is somehow affiliated with
Complainant because Respondent has copied and uses Complainant’s QWEST logo on
its website.
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name.
Respondent
registered and is using the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business. Disruption can be inferred where Respondent
registers a variation of Complainant’s mark by adding a descriptive or generic
word.
Respondent
registered and uses the domain name to attract Internet users to Respondent’s
website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s QWEST mark.
Respondent
acted in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its principal service
mark in corresponding domain names.
B. Respondent
The
Respondent concedes that Complainant is known as QWEST and owns broad rights in
its mark, however, the QWEST mark is not fanciful and the domain name is not an
obvious reference to the QWEST services provided by Complainant.
Respondents
use of the word “qwest” was designed to be associated with the alternative meaning
of “seeking or pursing something.” “The
goal was to create the image of an expedition undertaken in search of
discounts.” Respondent initially tried to register the domain name
<discountquest.com>, but it was unavailable.
Respondent
also denies that it provides identical services to those of Complainant, as
Respondent is not a Local Exchange Carrier or telecommunications carrier of any
sort and does not market itself as if it is.
Respondent concedes
that it is not licensed to use the QWEST mark.
However, Respondent has formerly sold QWEST accounts via authorized
agents of QWEST as a sub-agent.
Respondent denies
that Complainant’s mark or logo appears on Respondent’s website and asserts
that the site does not confuse visitors in any way.
Respondent is using the domain name to offer
consumers discounted prices on goods and services and has hundreds of thousands
of dollars invested in the marketing of the domain name.
Respondent
denies registering and using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s
business or to attempt to confuse Complainant’s customers, because there is no
evidence that a single visitor to Respondent’s website has been confused by the
domain name.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
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.
Complainant is alleging rights in the QWEST mark,
which it claims is fanciful, as a result of multiple registrations with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office as well as applications and
registrations in more than 48 countries worldwide. This Panel notes that under
US trademark law, registered
marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired
secondary meaning. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002). Further, Complainant states that it has been
operating under the QWEST name and mark in the United States since 1981 and
therefore the mark is likely well known in the telecommunication service area.
The
Panel concludes that the domain name consists of the word “discount”, followed
by the trademark QWEST. “Discount” is a generic addition, with no
distinctiveness. See Nokia Corp.
v. Nokiagirls.com, D2000-0102 (WIPO Apr. 18, 2000). The term “discount”
refers to the trademark QWEST in a way indicating a low-price or discount offer
for products/services of the said trademark.
The
Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademark QWEST, and accordingly finds for Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
It is an undisputed fact that the
Respondent is not licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use the QWEST
trademark. However, Respondent states that
it has formerly sold QWEST accounts via authorized agents of QWEST as a
sub-agent. Even if that would, under certain circumstances, legitimate some
sort of reference to Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent also claims that
its use of the word “qwest” was designed to be associated with the
alternative meaning of “seeking or pursing something” and, accordingly, not to
be associated with the sale of QWEST accounts. The Panel therefore concludes
that Respondent’s prior connection to Complainants goods and services cannot
create any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The essence of
Respondent’s argument is that Respondent is commonly known by <discountqwest.com>, under Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii), because it has made thousands of
business contacts and over 400 of those contacts routinely converse with e-mail
addresses that end in the domain name. This Panel has no reason to doubt the
figures mentioned. However, Respondent registered the domain name on February
26, 2002 – more than 20 years after Complainant’s first use of the trademark
QWEST. Respondent states on its web site (copy submitted by Respondent) that “Discountqwest.com
has been actively engaged within Florida as a Telecommunications and Data
Communications consulting firm since 1993”, but it seems that (at least)
before 2002 the Respondent rather used Chase Communications as its trade name.
Respondent has not presented any independent evidence, such as media
references, market survey or affidavits, that it is commonly known by the
disputed domain name.
The Complainant
and Respondent are both in the telecommunication business, the domain name
incorporates Complainant’s well known trademark and has only been used for two
years. These circumstances clearly speak against Respondent’s arguments that it
is commonly known by the domain name.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests respecting the domain name, and finds for
Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to disrupt
Complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition,
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and uses the domain name to
attract Internet users to Respondent’s website, for commercial gain, by
creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s QWEST mark. Respondent
denies these allegations for the reason that there is no evidence that a single
visitor to Respondent’s website has been confused by the domain name.
The
Panel finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QWEST
mark, which Complainant claims is fanciful, because of Respondent’s admission
that it formerly sold QWEST accounts.
Respondent’s statement that its use of the word “qwest” was designed to
be associated with the alternative meaning of “seeking or pursing something”
therefore lacks credibility. It seems obvious to this Panel that Respondent
registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. See Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged
infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an
intent to confuse.").
Apart
from the disputed domain name (incorporating Complainants trademark QWEST),
which appears repeatedly on Respondent’s web site, the QWEST mark and logo
cannot be found at the copies of the web site as provided by Respondent.
Respondent is however clearly in the same or at least very similar
business – telecommunication – as
Complainant, and there are several references to Complainant’s competitors on
the site. This Panel therefore finds it likely that Respondent has registered
the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the
Complainant. 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).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has
registered and is using the domain name in bad faith, and finds for Complainant
under Policy 4(a)(iii).
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 <discountqwest.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
P-E H Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: February 13, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page