Global Marketing Communications Ltd. v.
Lee Bung Ran
Claim
Number: FA0407000304888
Complainant is Global Marketing Communications Ltd (“Complainant”),
Tennyson House, 159-163 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5PA, England. Respondent is Lee Bung Ran (“Respondent”), YunsuGu DongchnDong Dongchn Apt
yunsuGu, 406-722, Korea.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <global-marketing.com>, registered with Tucows
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.
James
A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on July 28, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 6, 2004.
On
July 28, 2004, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <global-marketing.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Inc. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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
August 17, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
September 7, 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@global-marketing.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
September 13, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Crary 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 <global-marketing.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOBAL MARKETING trade name.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <global-marketing.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <global-marketing.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has
been trading under the name Global Marketing Communications Ltd. since
2002. Sometime during October 2001,
Complainant paid Respondent $800 for the transfer of the <global-marketing.com>
domain name registration. However,
Respondent never transferred the domain name registration to Complainant. Since October 2001, Complainant has been
using the <global-marketing.com> domain name for its website,
believing that it owned the full rights to the domain name.
Respondent
registered the <global-marketing.com> domain name on June 29,
2001. According to Complainant, the
domain name has been used by Complainant since October 2001.
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
failed to show that it has established rights in the GLOBAL MARKETING
mark. Complainant does not hold a
trademark registration. Furthermore,
Complainant has not asserted common law rights in the mark and has failed to
show that it has established secondary meaning in the GLOBAL MARKETING mark. Complainant merely asserts that it “has been
trading under the name Global Marketing Communications since 2002.” Use of a trade name is insufficient to
satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant
has merely provided two magazine excerpts that mention Complainant’s trade name
in order to establish Complainant’s rights.
Complainant has used the trade name for approximately two years, which
without further evidence is insufficient to establish common law rights in a mark. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates
that there is strong customer identification of the GLOBAL MARKETING mark with
Complainant’s goods or services.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish
rights in a mark as required by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Weatherford Int’l, Inc. v. Wells, FA 153626
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (holding that prior UDRP precedent did not support a finding of
common law rights in a mark in lieu of any supporting evidence, statements or
proof, e.g., business sales figures, revenues, advertising expenditures, number
of consumers served, trademark applications or intent-to-use applications); see
also Lowestfare.com LLA v. US Tours
& Travel, Inc., AF-0284 (eResolution Sept. 9, 2000) (finding that marks classified as
descriptive cannot be protected unless secondary meaning is proven and to
establish secondary meaning Complainant must show that the public identifies
the source of the product rather than the product itself); see also Cyberimprints.com, Inc. v. Alberga,
FA 100608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 11, 2001) (finding that Complainant failed to
prove trademark rights at common law because it did not prove the
CYBERIMPRINTS.COM mark was used to identify the source or sponsorship of goods
or services or that there was strong customer identification of the mark as
indicating the source of such goods or services); see also Front
Range Internet, Inc. v. Murphy, FA
145231 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 4, 2003) (finding that Complainant’s use of a
trade name, without any showing of secondary meaning associated with the name,
was an insufficient demonstration that Complainant “had rights” under the
Policy).
Furthermore,
even if Complainant had established rights in the GLOBAL MARKETING mark by
2002, Respondent’s registration of the domain name preceded Complainant’s
rights in the mark. Thus, Policy ¶
4(a)(i) would not have been satisfied because Complainant did not have rights
in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the domain name. See Intermark Media, Inc. v. Wang
Logic Corp., FA 139660 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (finding that any
enforceable interest that Complainant may have in its common law mark did not
predate Respondent’s domain name registration, therefore finding that Policy ¶
4(a)(i) had not been satisfied); see also Bus.
Architecture Group, Inc. v Reflex Publ’g, FA 97051 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2001)
(Complainant did not adequately demonstrate common law rights that predated the
domain name registration).
Complainant
asserts that it has purchased the domain name registration from Respondent but
that Respondent has failed to transfer the registration. This is a contractual issue, which is not
within the scope of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel does not express any opinion on this issue. See Discover New England v. Avanti Group,
Inc., FA 123886 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2002) (finding contractual dispute
outside the scope of the UDRP).
Complainant has
failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and therefore the Panel does not find it
necessary to continue its analysis under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) or (iii). See Creative Curb v. Edgetec International 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.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated:
September 23, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page