Sunshine Coast Bed and Breakfast, Cottage
Owners Association v. NA and Omnisquid
Claim Number: FA0410000339577
PARTIES
Complainant
is Sunshine Coast Bed and Breakfast,
Cottage Owners Association (“Complainant”), represented by Jeanette Panagapka, of Sunshine Coast Bed and Breakfast Cottage, Owners Association, Box 1164, Sechelt, BC, V0N 1V0,
Canada. Respondent is NA and Omnisquid (“Respondent”), represented by Donna L. Caswell, of Benson and Company,
Barristers and Solicitors, 200-270 Highway 33 W., Kelowna, BC,
V0N 3A4 BC, Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <sunshinecoastbb.com>,
registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
David
P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October
7, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on October 13, 2004.
On
October 7, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration
Forum that the domain name <sunshinecoastbb.com>
is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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
October 21, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of November 10, 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@sunshinecoastbb.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 10, 2004.
On November 18, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed
David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
Complainant,
Sunshine Coast Bed and Breakfast, Cottage Owners Association (hereinafter
“Complainant”) is a non-profit organization located in British Columbia Canada,
formed in 1999 by a group of Bed and Breakfast Cottage Owners. Chris Cutlan (“Cutlan”) was a founding
member and member of Complainant’s Board until November of 2003. Mr. Cutlan’s duties on behalf of the
Complainant included website development and domain name registration. Respondent Omnisquid originally contracted
to build Complainant’s website and register its domain name. Complainant’s domain name <bbsunshinecoast.com>
was registered on March 8, 2001, for use by Complainants. In December of 2002, Respondent registered
the domain name in dispute <sunshinecoastbb.com> following
Cutlan’s dismissal from the Complainant’s board. Cutlan then began soliciting Complainant’s members to advertise
on his website.
Complainant
contends that Respondent registered the name <sunshinecoastbb.com>
in order to create confusion among Complainant’s members, advertisers and
guests in that the similarity between Complainant’s domain name
<bbsunshinecoast.com> and <sunshinecoastbb.com> created
confusion among its members, business partners and prospective customers.
Respondent
contends that Complainant has failed to establish the requisite elements of a
violation of ICANN policy because it has failed to establish that the domain
name at issue <sunshinecoastbb.com> is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights. Respondent contends that
Complainant has failed to provide evidence to suggest that the domain name at
issue is a registered trademark.
Respondent contends that Complainant’s webpage logo does not include the
<bbsunshinecoast.com> domain as part of the logo and that Complainant’s
domain name is not used as a trademark, but merely as an identifying source for
its website. Respondent further
contends that Complainant’s domain name comprised of “bbsunshinecoast” is
merely descriptive because “bb” describes bed and breakfast, and
“sunshinecoast” the geographic location of where the services are
provided. Respondent contends that
Complainant has failed to establish that <bbsunshinecoast.com> is either
inherently distinctive, or that it has acquired distinctiveness through
secondary meaning. The Respondent
submits proof from Internet searches that show other commercial enterprises
that are advertised on the Internet using search words SunshineCoast Bed and
Breakfast, or some variation thereof.
The
Panel received a supplemental response from the Complainant which was not
submitted in accordance with the Rules, however, the Panel did consider the
material provided.
FINDINGS
Complainant Sunshine Coast Bed and Breakfast, Cottage Owners
Association of British Columbia, Canada has used the name
<bbsunshinecoast.com> on its website since March of 2001. Although Complainant has shown use of
<bbsunshinecoast.com> its domain name, it has failed to show sufficient
trademark or service mark rights to warrant transfer under the UDRP rules.
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.
Complainant contends that it has used the domain name
<bbsunshinecoast.com> since March of 2001 both as a website and as a
trademark for the purpose of advertising.
The proof submitted shows that the domain name
<bbsunshinecoast.com> has been used in advertising for the purpose of
showing where Complainant’s website is located on the Internet, not as a source
identifier for its services. No proof
has been submitted showing a trademark or service mark registration by any
governmental authority.
Although generally trademark or service
mark rights are established by showing that the mark is registered by a
government authority or agency, common law rights may be acquired through a
showing of secondary meaning associated with the mark and Complainant. See S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander
Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2003).
In
the absence of registration to the mark, the Complainant must establish common
law trademark rights by demonstrating sufficiently strong identification of its
mark by the public, showing the mark has acquired secondary meaning. Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden
of providing proof upon which a finding of secondary meaning could be
based. Although a Complainant in a
proceeding such as this may establish common law rights to a mark, the
Complainant in this case has failed to do so.
See generally NBA Prop., Inc. v. Adirondack Software Corp., D2000-1211
(WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (denying Complaint because Complainant was not the owner of
the trademarks); Razorbox, Inc. v.
Skjodt, FA 150795 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 9, 2003) (finding that Complainant did not establish the requisite
trademark or common law rights to grant Complainant the necessary standing for the Panel to
find in its favor as Complainant’s pending trademark application did not, in
and of itself, demonstrate trademark rights in the mark applied for); Diversified Mortgage, Inc. v. World Fin.
Partners, FA 118308
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2002) (finding that the UDRP makes clear that its
“rules are intended only to protect trademarks, registered or common law, and
not mere trade names, due to the fact that trade names are not universally
protected as are trademarks”); Tees.com, LLC v. Emphasys Technologies, Inc.,
FA206, 362 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 27, 2003); 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 Molecular
Nutrition, Inc. v. Network News and Publ’ns., FA 156715 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 24, 2003) (approving of and applying the principals outlined in prior
decisions that recognized “common law” trademark rights as appropriate for
protection under the Policy “if the complainant can establish that it has done
business using the name in question in a sufficient manner to cause a secondary
meaning identifiable to Complainant's goods or services”).
Thus, Complainant has failed to establish
Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Since Complainant has failed to establish
the first element of the Policy, it is unnecessary to address 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); see also Priest
Holms v. Whois Protection Serv., FA288, 395 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Aug. 17,
2004).
DECISION
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 <sunshinecoastbb.com>
domain name remain with Respondent.
David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum