Global Investment
Research Corp. v. Options & Stocks, LLC c/o Mario Jebise
Claim Number: FA0404000263140
Complainant
is Global Investment Research Corp. (“Complainant”),
represented by Jill M. Pietrini, of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd., Los
Angeles, CA, 90064. Respondent is Options & Stocks, LLC c/o Mario Jebise (“Respondent”), Drkadzijaka 27, Belgrade
11000, Yogoslavia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <optionsandstocks.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on April 23,
2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 26, 2004.
On April 26, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc.
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <optionsandstocks.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 May 4, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and
Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement
Notification"), setting a deadline of May 24, 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@optionsandstocks.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 June 4, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum
appointed John J. Upchurch 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
<optionsandstocks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s OPTIONETICS mark.
2.
Respondent
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <optionsandstocks.com>
domain name.
3.
Respondent
registered and used the <optionsandstocks.com> domain name in bad
faith.
B.
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant,
Global Investment Research Corp., develops, sells, and distributes products
regarding investment strategies.
Complainant registered the mark OPTIONETICS with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on March 21, 2000 (Reg. No. 75,446,967).
Respondent
registered the <optionsandstocks.com> domain name on December 7,
2003. Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to sell unauthorized copies of Complainant’s products and the
products of other third parties.
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 established that it has rights in the OPTIONETICS mark through registration
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 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).
However,
the <optionsandstocks.com> domain name does not include
Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The
disputed domain name resembles Complainant’s mark only in the use of the word
“option,” which is simply a generic term included in Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the <optionsandstocks.com>
domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s OPTIONETICS mark when
viewing the mark as a whole. See
FloridaFirst Bank v. Carlson, FA 143677 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2003)
(holding that as Complainant disclaimed the exclusive right to use “BANK”,
apart from the FLORIDAFIRST BANK mark, the validity of the mark was to be
determined by viewing the trademark as a whole and not just the words “FloridaFirst.”
Hence, when viewing Complainant’s FLORIDAFIRST BANK mark as a whole,
Respondent’s <floridafirst.com> domain name was not confusingly
similar to the registered mark); see also B2BWorks, Inc. v. Venture Direct Worldwide, Inc., FA 97119 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 5, 2001) (holding that Complainant did not have exclusive rights to
use of the terms “B2B” and “Works” in association with other words, even with a
registered trademark for B2BWORKS).
Furthermore,
the disputed domain name would likely not be confused with Complainant’s
OPTIONETICS mark, because they differ in sound and spelling. The <optionsandstocks.com>
domain name uses only a generic term from Complainant’s mark and adds two more
terms after it that are unrelated to Complainant’s mark. Thus, Internet users searching for
Complainant’s OPTIONETICS mark would not likely be confused by the disputed
domain name. See Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) ("Similarity of marks or lack thereof are context-specific
concepts. In the Internet context, consumers are aware that domain names for
different websites are quite often similar, because of the need for language
economy, and that very small differences matter."); see also Thomas Cook Holdings Ltd. v. Aydin,
D2000-0676 (WIPO Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that
the domain name, <hot18to30.com>, is neither identical nor confusingly
similar to Respondent's trademark "Club 18-30”).
Complainant
argues that the use of the term “option” in conjunction with the term “stocks”
in the disputed domain name has an overall effect of confusing similarity,
because Complainant is in the business of providing educational material
relating to stocks and other investment opportunities. However, the circumstances under which Respondent
uses the disputed domain name are not relevant in assessing whether the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
See Porto Chico Stores, Inc. v. Otavio Zambon, D2000-1270 (WIPO Nov. 15,
2000) (stating that the issue of identicality or confusing similarity is to be
resolved “by comparing the trademark and the disputed domain name, without
regard to the circumstances under which either may be used.”).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has not been satisfied.
Since
Complainant failed to establish the first element of the Policy, it is
unnecessary to assess the claims under the remaining two elements. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd.,
FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because Complainant
must prove all three elements under the Policy, Complainant’s failure to prove
one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element
unnecessary).
Having
failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly,
it is Ordered that the <optionsandstocks.com> domain name be REMAIN
WITH Respondent.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated:
June 18, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page