All American Semiconductor, Inc. v.
Veronica Vasquez
Claim
Number: FA0503000434117
Complainant is All American Semiconductor, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Dominique R. Shelton, of Folger, Levin and Kahn, LLP,
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Floor 28, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Respondent is Veronica Vasquez (“Respondent”), 333 City Boulevard West, Suite #
170054, Orange, CA 92868.
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <aacomponents.net>, registered with Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March
2, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on March 4, 2005.
On
March 1, 2005, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by
e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <aacomponents.net>
is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names
Worldwide 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
March 7, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
March 28, 2005 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@aacomponents.net by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
April 1, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R.
Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 <aacomponents.net>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <aacomponents.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aacomponents.net>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, All
American Semiconductor, Inc., has used the ALL AMERICAN mark in association
with the distribution of electronic components continuously in commerce since
1964. Complainant has registered the
ALL AMERICAN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
(Reg. No. 1,440,294 issued May 19, 1987).
Respondent
registered the <aacomponents.net> domain name on March 29,
2003.
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
established rights in the ALL AMERICAN mark through registration of the mark
with the USPTO and through continuous use of the mark since 1964. See 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.”); 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).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <aacomponents.net>
domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark. Although the term “components” is a term
that generally describes Complainant’s business, the fact that Complainant has
rights in the ALL AMERICAN mark does not impute these rights to the subsequent
“aa” abbreviation. A comparison of the
mark and the domain name leads the Panel to conclude that they are not
confusingly similar pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ISL Mktg. AG v. Ji Young Chung, D2000-0034 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2000) (finding
that, although one may argue that “wc” is an abbreviation for WORLD CUP, it is
not likely the meaning most people would give to those letters); see also Copart, Inc. v. SalvageNow, D2000-0417
(WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name at issue <copart.net>
is not identical to nor substantially similar to the mark registered and used
by the complainant, CI COPART INC. SALVAGE AUTO AUCTIONS).
Since
Complainant has failed to establish confusing similarity pursuant to paragraph
4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is unnecessary to address paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and
(iii) of the Policy. 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
Ricom, Inc. v. Ricom, FA 348012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2004) (finding
that failure to establish one element of the Policy deems it unnecessary for
the Panel to address any other element).
Having failed to
establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
April 15, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
National
Arbitration Forum