Tambrands Inc. v. Steven Vachani
Claim
Number: FA0401000234369
Complainant is Tambrands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by Mark D. Wegener, of Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004. Respondent is Steven Vachani (“Respondent”), 2425B Channing Way #216, Berkeley,
CA 94704.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <freetampax.com>, registered with Go
Daddy Software, 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 January 30, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 30, 2004.
On
January 30, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <freetampax.com> is registered with Go Daddy
Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy
Software, 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 5, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of February 25, 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@freetampax.com by
e-mail.
On February 5,
2004, in response to the Forum's service of the Complaint on Respondent, the
Forum received an e-mail that stated, in its entirety, "There is not need
for arbitration on this. We have no
desire or need for this domain. We are
happy to release it willingly." This informal Response raised no
substantive claim recognized by the Policy.
On March 7, 2004,
The Forum received an e-mail from Respondent stating, in part, “I have no
desire to enter into any case and have no need for the domain. Therefore this preceding is unnecessary…”
Having received no
formal 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 5, 2004, 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 <freetampax.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TAMPAX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <freetampax.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <freetampax.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is a
famous, multi-national company which manufactures and sells goods in the United
States, including TAMPAX brand “sanitary absorbent tampons.” Complainant owns the registration in the
TAMPAX mark, registered June 14, 1932 (Reg. No. 294,959) with the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as nine other registrations using the
word “tampax” (including Reg. Nos. 523,716, 1,867,440, 2,057,520, 2,061,250, 2,396,428,
2,396,429, 2,701,503, and 2,748,820).
Respondent
registered the <freetampax.com> domain name on November 2,
2002. Respondent was using the disputed
domain name to market TAMPAX products, including online and mail-in
offers. In an e-mail to the Forum
regarding this action, Respondent stated, “We are happy to release [the domain
name] willingly.”
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 has
rights in the TAMPAX mark as evidenced by registration with the USPTO and
continuous use in commerce. See
Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002)
(“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are
inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive. Respondent has the burden
of refuting this assumption).
The <freetampax.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to the TAMPAX mark. The only difference is the addition of the
word “free,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the
mark. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol
Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject
domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by
the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark); see also Westfield
Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the
<westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the
WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).
Accordingly,
the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as true.
See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA
95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable
inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see
also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Respondent has
indicated that it is willing to transfer the domain name registration to the
Complainant. The Panel construes its
willingness to transfer as an admission that it does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name.
See Vertical Solutions
Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31,
2000) (finding that Respondent’s agreement to transfer and suggestion that a
formal Complaint be initiated to confirm transfer are evidence of Respondent’s
lack of legitimate interests); see also Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Offbeat Media Inc., FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s willingness to transfer upon
notification of the Complaint is evidence of its lack of legitimate interests
or rights).
Alternatively,
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to offer Complainant’s products for sale
to the public is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate
noncommercial use, pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master a/k/a MedGo,
FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of a
confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in
competition with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or
services); see also Nat’l
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Halpern, D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000)
(finding that domain names used to sell Complainant’s goods without
Complainant’s authority, as well as others’ goods, is not bona fide use).
Additionally,
given Respondent’s WHOIS information, Respondent is not commonly known by the
domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS
information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain
name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see
also 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).
Accordingly,
the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
indicated that it is willing to transfer the disputed domain name to
Complainant. The Panel construes this
willingness to transfer the domain name as an admission of bad faith. See Marcor Int’l v. Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001)
(Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name at issue coupled with its
expressed willingness to transfer the name amply satisfies the bad faith
requirements set forth in ICANN Policy); see also Global Media Group, Ltd. v. Kruzicevic, FA 96558 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 7, 2001) (finding Respondent’s failure to address Complainant’s
allegations coupled with its willingness to transfer the names is evidence of
bad faith registration and use).
Alternatively, the
Panel finds that, in using Complainant’s mark to sell Complainant’s products,
Respondent is attempting create a likelihood of confusion to attract Internet
users for commercial gain, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See America Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000)
(finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to
his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark and offering the same chat services via his website as Complainant);
see also Identigene, Inc. v.
Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where
Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where
similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user
into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services
offered at the site).
Accordingly,
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 <freetampax.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
March 15, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page