Sonic USA, Inc. v. Remi Bukin
Claim Number: FA0407000304535
PARTIES
Complainant
is Sonic USA, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by David A. Hoffman, of Silverman Santucci, LLP,
500 W. Cypress Creek Rd., Suite 500, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309. Respondent is Remi Bukin (“Respondent”), 24 Amherst Drive, Kitchener, Ontario
N2P1C9.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <sonicusa.com>,
registered with Register.com.
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.
R.
Glenn Ayers served as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on July 26, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 29, 2004.
On
July 27, 2004, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <sonicusa.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
August 2, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 23,
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@sonicusa.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 20, 2004.
On September 1, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant
contends that it holds a registered trademark, “SONIC USA.” This registered mark, says Complainant, has
been in continuous use in interstate commerce since 1991. The registered mark is assigned to
Complainant.
Complainant also claims to hold the
registered mark “SONIC.” Finally,
Complainant has registered the domain name <sonicusaboats.com>.
These marks and the domain name are used to identify power boats.
Complainant asserts that Respondent
registered the domain name <sonicusa.com> on December 30, 2000. Complainant had registered its domain name, <sonicusaboats.com> a year earlier. Complainant asserts that its trademarks are
used on products throughout the United States and Canada.
Complainant asserts that “Respondent
began soliciting the sale of the domain name WWW.SONICUSA.COM to the general
public, including specific solicitations directed to Complainant on various
occasions.” Complainant states that it
sent a cease and desist letter on February 26, 2003, and then contacted
Respondent in an attempt to resolve the problem. Respondent offered to sell the domain name several times, for as
much as $22,000.00. Respondent
allegedly asserted that $22,000 represented “out-of-pocket expenses.”
Complainant states that the domain name
and the marks are identical.
Complainant also asserts that Respondent cannot show any legitimate
rights or interest in the domain name. Particularly,
Claimant asserts that Respondent has made no offering of goods or services in
connection with the domain name.
Complainant also notes that Respondent has no interest in or rights to
the name SONIC.
Complainant
asserts bad faith, arguing first that the registration of the domain name,
which is identical to an existing mark, is alone some evidence of bad
faith. The Complainant asserts that the
registration of the name is “blatant cypersquatting” and that Respondent has
offered to sell the domain name for varying amounts. The last offer for sale was in the amount of $22,000.00. Complainant disputes that the amount of
$22,000.00 bears no reasonable relationship to any out-of-pocket costs.
B. Respondent
Respondent,
in a very short response, denies that it ever listed or offered the domain name
for sale. Respondent denies that
Exhibit J is a printout of its website offering the domain names for sale. Respondent denies allegations of
cybersquatting. Respondent denies that
there are any Canadian trademark violations.
Respondent asserts that he “was harassed, threatened, and slandered by
the complainant.”
Respondent
seems to argue that he registered the domain name “legally” in order to reserve
the domain name “for future use of Sonic United Sales Associates to be operated
in Canada.”
FINDINGS
The Panelist finds first that Complainant
holds a valid mark. That mark is
identical to the domain name registered by Respondent. In the alternative, Respondent’s domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant has demonstrated that
Respondent has no rights in the mark.
Respondent admits, as best as can be determined from his Response, that
he has not made any bona fide offering for the sale of goods or services under
the domain name. Respondent has not
indicated that he claims any right to or interest in the name “Sonic” or the
name “Sonic USA.”
As to bad faith, the Panelist finds that
the evidence provided by Complainant is overwhelming. Respondent did offer to sell the domain name to Complainant for a
sum that bears no reasonable relationship to out-of-pocket cost.
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;
(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.
The domain name and mark are identical or
confusingly similar. The SONIC USA trademark
was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark office on August 31,
1993 in connection with power boats.
Though the registrant of the mark is listed as American Industries,
Inc., Complainant claims to be the assignee of all rights in the SONIC USA
mark. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v.
Rademacher, D2002-0201
(WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the 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); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful
trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
creates a presumption of rights in a mark); see also 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.”).
According to Complainant, the domain name <sonicusa.com>
is phonetically identical to Complainant’s SONIC USA mark, which
satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA 93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 7, 2000)
(finding that a domain name which is phonetically identical to Complainant’s
mark satisfies ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy); see
also Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer's Antiques & Phizer, D2002-0410 (WIPO July 3, 2002) (finding the
<phizer.com> domain name phonetically equivalent and
confusingly similar to the PFIZER mark).
Moreover,
the disputed domain name has incorporated Complainant’s SONIC USA mark in its
entirety and has merely added the generic top-level domain “.com” to the mark,
which has consistently been held immaterial in comparing domain names with
marks under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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).
Complainant
charges and Respondent admits that Respondent is not using the disputed domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because “Respondent has merely
appropriated the domain name simply for the purpose of reselling the domain to
the highest bidder.” Complainant has
provided evidence in the form of an e-mail dated February 1, 2003, which
appears to have been sent by Respondent, purporting to offer Complainant the
disputed domain name registration for sale in the amount of $5000. Indeed, there is precedent to support a
finding that, if a domain name is registered with the intent to merely sell the
domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or service mark, it may be
concluded that the domain name registrant lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the domain name. See
Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains,
FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and
legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s
attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful
holder of the RED CROSS mark.”); see also Kinko’s Inc. v. eToll, Inc., FA 94447 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27,
2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name where it appeared that the domain name was registered for ultimate
use by Complainant); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Dobson, FA 146568
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2003) (finding evidence that Respondent lacked rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name after it sent several
correspondences offering to sell its rights in the domain name in exchange for
1,500 shares of Complainant’s stock to Complainant).
Respondent has passively held the domain
name for a little less than four years and has failed to provide the Panelist
with any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with
this mysterious company referred to as Sonic United Sales Associates. Therefore, the Panel may find that
Respondent has failed to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that when Respondent declares its intent to develop a
website, “[Policy ¶] 4(c)(i) requires Respondent to show 1) ‘demonstrable’
evidence of such preparations to use the domain name, and 2) that such
preparations were undertaken ‘before any notice to [Respondent] of the
dispute’”); see also AT&T
Corp. v. Domains by Brian Evans, D2000-0790 (WIPO Sept. 27, 2000) (finding
no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent did not provide any
documentation on the existence of its alleged company that might show what the
company’s business was, or how the company’s years of existence, if it ever
existed, might mesh with Complainant’s trademark claims); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter.,
FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s “vague and
unsupported assertion of ‘plans to sell household goods, supplies and
appliances over the Internet’” was insufficient to be considered proof of a
legitimate business plan).
Furthermore,
Complainant charges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain
name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) by acquiring the domain name
registration primarily to sell it to Complainant for valuable consideration in
excess of its documented out-of-pocket expenses. Complainant asserts that, during a telephone conversation with
Respondent that took place on July 7, 2003, Respondent stated that it would be “willing
to sell the domain name to the Complainant for a fee of approximately
$22,000.00 USD, claiming this amount as ‘out-of-pocket expenses.’” In a confirmation letter dated July 9, 2003,
counsel for Complainant sent a letter to Respondent requesting “detailed
accounting” of its expenses relating to the disputed domain name. See Complaint, Exhibit N. There is no evidence in the record that
provides such an accounting. Therefore,
the Panelist finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name
in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because Respondent attempted to sell
the domain name registration to Complainant for valuable consideration in
excess of Respondent’s expenses, which it has failed to properly document for
the Panel. See Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman,
AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated bad
faith when it requested monetary compensation beyond out-of-pocket costs in
exchange for the registered domain name); see also Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (finding
that a failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for
sale to Complainant amounts to a use of the domain name in bad faith); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. Prijic, FA 112639 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2002) (“[I]n
determining whether Respondent has sought consideration in excess of its
out-of-pocket costs, the Policy makes clear that only costs related to the
domain name are to be considered, and not those related to the creation or maintenance
of the connected website.”); see
also Matmut v. Tweed, D2000-1183
(WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(i) where
Respondent stated in communication with Complainant, “if you are interested in
buying this domain name, we would be ready to sell it for $10,000”).
Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by passively holding the domain name without demonstrating
any preparations to use the domain name. See DCI S.A. v. Link
Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that
Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶
4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical
Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28,
2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use
can constitute use in bad faith); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000)
(finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that
connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name
permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances,
for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad
faith.”).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sonicusa.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
R. GLEN AYERS
Dated: September 10, 2004
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page