Tall Walls, Inc. v. Registrant
xcsquare@hotmail.com 852 225225225
Claim
Number: FA0405000271186
Complainant is Tall Walls, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by Peter T. Wakiyama of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Respondent is Registrant xcsquare@hotmail.com 852 225225225 (“Respondent”), P.O.
Box 71826, Kowloon Central Post Office, Hong Kong, NA.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <tallwalls.com>, registered with OnlineNIC,
Inc.
The
undersigned certifies she has acted independently and impartially and that to
the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson
sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically May 11, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint May
13, 2004.
On
May 13, 2004, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <tallwalls.com> is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. verified that
Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, Inc. registration agreement and thereby
has 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 20, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
June 9, 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@tallwalls.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 21, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as
Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the Forum 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. The domain name registered by Respondent,
<tallwalls.com>, is identical and confusingly similar to
Complainant’s TALL WALLS and TALL WALLS INC FOR THAT BIG IMPRESSION marks.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <tallwalls.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <tallwalls.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has
used the TALL WALLS mark since at least as early as January of 2002. Complainant filed a trademark application
for the TALL WALLS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) March 18, 2004 (Ser. No. 78/386885) for use in connection with
“retail and online store featuring art, lighting and decorative accessories
made specifically for tall and larger scale walls.”
Complainant also
filed a service mark application with the USPTO April 4, 2002, for the TALL
WALLS INC FOR THAT BIG IMPRESSION mark.
The mark is used in the same manner as the TALL WALLS mark. A notice of allowance was granted by the
USPTO December 16, 2003, in connection with the TALL WALLS INC FOR THAT BIG
IMPRESSION mark.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <tallwalls.com> August 3,
2002. Respondent uses the domain name
to host a website that links to various commercial vendors of art, lighting,
and décor.
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
will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to
paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires Complainant to 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 owns
two registration applications with the USPTO for the TALL WALLS and TALL WALLS
INC FOR THAT BIG IMPRESSION marks.
Previous panels have concluded that registration applications are
sufficient under the Policy to establish rights in a mark. One panel has even articulated that evidence
indicating a complainant is “actively seeking trademark protection” is enough
to establish rights in a mark under the Policy. Aston v. Pierrets, FA 117322 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“Evidence
that Complainant is actively seeking trademark protection for a mark in
question is enough to show rights in the mark sufficient to establish
standing.”); see also McCarthy
on Trademarks and Unfair Competition,
§ 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution 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).
Consistent with
prior panel decisions, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in
the TALL WALLS mark under the Policy. The fact that a notice of
allowance has been granted by the USPTO for the TALL WALLS INC
FOR THAT BIG IMPRESSION mark is further evidence of Complainant’s rights. See Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Gold
Anchor Serv., D2003-0443 (WIPO July 17, 2003) (finding rights in a
trademark where the complainant filed an application with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office and a notice of allowance had been granted); see
also SeekAmerica Networks
Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules
do not require that Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a
government authority or agency for such rights to exist. Rights in the mark can
be established by pending trademark applications).
The disputed
domain name <tallwalls.com> is identical to Complainant’s TALL
WALLS mark because the name incorporates the mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic top-level domain
“.com” is irrelevant for purposes of determining the similarity between the disputed
domain name and Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22,
2000) (finding that the addition of a top-level domain is without legal
significance).
Therefore, the
disputed domain name <tallwalls.com> is identical to Complainant’s
TALL WALLS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
established with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights to and
legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety in the domain name
that Respondent registered. Respondent
has not responded to Complainant’s allegations. In particular, Respondent has not alleged rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel may construe Respondent’s silence as an implicit
admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency
Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to
respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest
in the domain names); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to
[contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of
complainant’s assertion in this regard.”).
Respondent also
failed to provide evidence to show that Respondent is commonly known by the
disputed domain name <tallwalls.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Therefore, the Panel concludes Respondent is
not commonly known by the domain name <tallwalls.com>. 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 RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Respondent is
using a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s TALL WALLS mark to
provide links to businesses that offer goods and services that compete with
those offered by Complainant under its mark.
Such use does not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or
services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23,
2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market
products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods and services); see also Chip Merch., Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21,
2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell
competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods).
Therefore,
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering Complainant’s mark in
a domain name. Respondent registered
the disputed domain name to host a website that provides links to third-party
businesses in competition with Complainant’s business. The fact that Respondent used the domain
name in this competing manner and used Complainant’s own mark to accomplish
this end is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding
Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with Complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that
Respondent has diverted business from Complainant to a competitor’s website in
violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent
registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert
Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that
Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create
confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶
4(b)(iii) & (iv).”).
The evidence
supports a finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet
users to its website, presumably for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood
of confusion with Complainant’s mark, which also constitutes bad faith under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. 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 services as Complainant
via his website); see also Scholastic
Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001)
(finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent initially used the domain
name at issue to resolve to a website offering similar services as Complainant
into the same market); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA
157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the
<saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with Complainant’s
illustrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name,
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)).
Therefore,
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <tallwalls.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page