Mattel, Inc. v. Good Time Tickets a/k/a
GTT a/k/a Marc Simon
Claim Number: FA0406000282802
PARTIES
Complainant
is Mattel, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by William Dunnegan, of Perkins & Dunnegan, 45 Rockefeller
Plaza, New York, NY 10111. Respondent
is Good Time Tickets a/k/a GTT a/k/a Marc Simon (“Respondent”), 6501 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, CA
90028.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <hotwheelheaven.com>
and <hotwheeltrader.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
and Bulkregister, Llc.,
respectively.
PANEL
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.
Dennis
A. Foster as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 3, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 4, 2004.
On
June 4, 2004 and June 9, 2004, Network Solutions, Inc. and Bulkregister, Llc.,
respectively, confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <hotwheelheaven.com>
and <hotwheeltrader.com> are
registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and Bulkregister, Llc., respectively,
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, Inc. and Bulkregister,
Llc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. and
Bulkregister, Llc. registration agreements 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
June 10, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 30,
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@hotwheelheaven.com
and postmaster@hotwheeltrader.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 30, 2004.
On July 9, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
--Complainant
owns the trademark for HOT WHEELS and has received U.S. Certificate of
Trademark Registration Nos. 843, 156 for scale model toys; 884,563 for toy
miniature automobiles and accessories; and 1,810,905 for toy vehicles and race
sets. These registrations are valid and
subsisting.
--The
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to and dilutive of Complainant's
registered trademark for HOT WHEELS within the meaning of the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999, 15 U.S.C. Sect. 1125(d).
--Respondent
is not commonly known by the name HOT WHEELS and has acquired no trademark or
service mark rights to the <hotwheelheaven.com> and <hotwheeltrader.com>
domain names.
--Respondent
has not made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of these domain
names. The URL address <hotwheelheaven.com>
provides links to various HOT WHEELS sites, classified ads, message boards,
e-mail accounts, photos and games. The
URL address <hotwheeltrader.com> is not being used at this time.
--In
connection with its HOT WHEELS line of products, Complainant uses many domain
names, including, but not limited to, <hotwheels.com>,
<planethotwheels.com> and <hotwheelscollectors.com>.
--Respondent
has used the <hotwheelheaven.com> domain name with the intent to
trade on the goodwill Complainant has in its HOT WHEELS products, and to
enhance the commercial value of his own services. Respondent also registered the <hotwheeltrader.com> domain
name, which he had used to promote a business dealing in die-cast cars.
--By
using the <hotwheelheaven.com> and <hotwheeltrader.com> domain
names, Respondent has diluted, and will continue to dilute, the distinctive
quality of the HOT WHEELS trademark by lessening its capacity to identify
Complainant's products and services in violation of the Federal Anti-Dilution
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125 (c).
Respondent's use of the <hotwheelheaven.com> and <hotwheeltrader.com>
domain names has infringed and will continue to infringe the HOT WHEELS
trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 114(a).
--By
letter and e-mail dated March 25, 2004, Complainant demanded that Respondent
transfer ownership of the <hotwheelheaven.com> domain name to
Complainant, as well as remove certain banners from the website.
--Respondent
replied, stating that he had previously reached an agreement with one of
Complainant's attorneys regarding his ability to keep the <hotwheelheaven.com>
domain name.
--Complainant
did not agree to allow Respondent to retain ownership of <hotwheelheaven.com>. Complainant replied to these concerns in an
e-mail dated April 9, 2004. On this
date, Respondent re-registered the <hotwheeltrader.com> domain
name.
--After
noticing the removal of certain banners from <hotwheelheaven.com>,
Complainant again e-mailed Respondent demanding the removal of additional
banners as well as the transfer of the domain name. Complainant was not aware of the re-registration of <hotwheeltrader.com>
at that time.
--The
disputed domain names should be transferred to Complainant.
B.
Respondent
--The
<hotwheelheaven.com> domain name has a legitimate and bona fide
non-commercial use to exhibit Respondent's personal collection of die cast
miniature cars. Respondent displays
photographs taken of die cast miniature cars from his personal collection. Respondent is not offering for sale,
distribution, or advertising any goods or services likely to cause confusion,
or to cause mistake, or to deceive, and is in compliance with 15 U.S.C. Sect. 1114. <Hotwheeltrader.com> is no
longer in existence. ICANN Rule
5(b)(i).
--Respondent
registered the disputed domain names on September 20, 1996 and they were not
designed to divert consumers from the trademark holder's site. The site consists of Respondent's personal
collection taken from personal photographs of his personal property. ICANN Rule 5(b)(i).
--The
site is used solely for the purpose of exhibiting Respondent's personal
photographs and collection and for posting conversations with other
collectors. In addition to the use,
there are links to other sites added by site users for the purpose of
information sharing on other collector's sites. ICANN Rule 5(b)(i).
--Respondent
gained ownership and possession of the domain name on September 20, 1996 by
legal means. ICANN Rule 5(b)(i).
--Respondent
has not received any pecuniary gain from the website. The site is strictly to showcase his personal collection. Respondent shows no intent of diverting
consumers from the trademark holder's site or of tarnishing the name. ICANN
Rule 5(b)(i).
--Respondent
is making a bona fide non-commercial or fair use of the domain name and has not
used the site for the purpose of selling, trading, transferring, or assigning
goods or services. Respondent is not
diluting or tarnishing the name and only showcases his personal collection as a
collector of miniature die cast cars.
ICANN Rule 5(b)(i).
--Complainant's
request for transfer of the disputed domain names should be denied.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a large and prominent toy
manufacturer. Respondent is an
individual who is a HOT WHEELS model car aficionado. Although Respondent claims to dabble in model cars only as a
hobby, the Panel finds the content of Respondent's websites and the letters
exchanged between Complainant and Respondent show that model cars are a serious
commercial interest for Respondent.
Complainant warned Respondent in writing
on several occasions, notably on March 25, 2004 and April 9, 2004 and also in
early 2002 that Respondent's websites at the <hotwheelheaven.com>
and <hotwheeltrader.com> domain names infringed Complainant's HOT
WHEELS trademark rights. Respondent
tried to mollify Complainant by modifying some of the content of the website,
and by promising to transfer <hotwheeltrader.com> but then
re-registering it.
DISCUSSION
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; and
(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 has exhibited copies of its
United States federal HOT WHEELS trademark registrations, including notably No.
843,156 for scale model toys with a first use in 1967. The two domain names, <hotwheelheaven.com>
and <hotwheeltrader.com>, both have as their major component
Complainant's HOT WHEELS trademark. The
Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's
HOT WHEELS trademark. Respondent is well
aware of this similarity and offered to put a disclaimer on its website.
Respondent has added the words
"heaven" and "trader", but in the context of selling model
cars, both words are descriptive add-ons.
"Trader" obviously denotes a website where there is buying,
selling and perhaps bartering of the HOT WHEELS model cars. Furthermore, when
we consider that Complainant operates a model car web site called
<planethotwheels.com>, it can be seen that Respondent's
"heaven" is a logical add-on that mimics Complainant's
"planet". Both denote web
sites where HOT WHEELS model car aficionados can be in their element. Adding "heaven" and
"trader" do not allow Respondent to create a distinctive mark or
domain name of its own. In this regard,
see Compaq Information Technologies Group
L.P. v. Dealer Direct, Inc., FA 97062 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 14, 2001)
(finding that the domain names <compaqdirect.com>,
<compaqonline.com> and <compaqdirectplus.com> are logical add-ons
to the trademark COMPAQ).
The Panel thus finds Complainant has
carried its burden of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to show that the disputed
domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant contends Respondent has no
right to use the disputed domain names, and Complainant has written as much to
Respondent on several occasions.
For his part, Respondent contends he is
making a fair use of the disputed domain names: he says he uses them to show
his private collection of model cars and makes no money off the websites. This, Respondent contends, should qualify as
permissible fair use under the Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). However, the Panel does not believe Respondent's use of the
disputed domain names is non-commercial.
On the contrary, the website at <hotwheelheaven.com> is
replete with advertisement banners and invites the public to click through to
other web sites that also are commercial.
The Panel believes it proper to infer that Respondent derives income
from advertising and from funneling potential clients to commercial websites
connected with model cars and other merchandise.
In a comparable previous case under the
Policy that involved a Complainant aircraft manufacturer and a private individual
who dealt in model airplanes, the Panel also rejected a "fair use"
contention under this rationale. The
Panel noted, "…the business being operated at the website…is clearly and
unquestionably for commercial gain…to sell model aircraft." Lockheed Martin Corporation v. NBPro Hosting,
D2003-0859 (WIPO December 18, 2003). For a further case under the Policy
rejecting that using the disputed domain for a commercial web site could be
considered fair use, see Lockheed
Martin Corporation v. Ning Ye, D2000-1733 (WIPO May 17, 2001).
The Panel finds Complainant has carried
its burden of proof to show Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in
the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends Respondent is
violating the bad faith provisions of
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) in that Respondent is using Complainant's HOT WHEELS
trademark to attract the public to Respondent's website for commercial gain. The Panel agrees. Complainant is a large company that has built many notable toy
trademarks, including the HOT WHEELS trademark at issue in this case. Respondent is an individual seeking to make
money on advertising and customer procurement in the field of model toys. Respondent reasoned that it could jump-start
its business by folding Complainant's well-known trademark into Respondent's
disputed domain names. The Panel
concludes Complainant has carried its burden of proof to show Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per 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 <hotwheelheaven.com> and <hotwheeltrader.com> domain names
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
Dennis A. Foster, Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page