Florists'
Transworld Delivery v. Seocho
Claim
Number: FA0202000104976
PARTIES
Complainant is Florists' Transworld Delivery, Downers
Grove, IL (“Complainant”) represented by Scott
J. Major, of Millen, White, Zelano
& Branigan, P.C. Respondent is Seocho, Seoul, KOREA (“Respondent).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at
issue is <wwwftd.com>,
registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned
certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of
his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted
a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on February
21, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 22, 2002.
On February 21, 2002, BulkRegister.com,
Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwftd.com> is registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com, 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 February 22, 2002,
a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 14, 2002 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@wwwftd.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 March 21, 2002,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
Complainant requests
that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Respondent’s <wwwftd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s FTD mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitiamte interests in the disputed domain
name.
Respondent regsitered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
No Response was
received.
FINDINGS
Complainant
has registered its FTD mark in several countries in relation to its wide range
of products and services including bowls, baskets, floral arrangements,
clothing, telecommunications services, and mail order services featuring floral
products. Complainant registered FTD
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 9, 1990, Reg. No.
1,576,429.
Additionally,
Complainant has been using the FTD mark in relation to its floral goods and
services since 1910. During the three
most recent fiscal years, Complainant and its subsidiary, FTD.com, have spent
in excess of $100 million on marketing and promotionalcampaigns for the goods
and services offered through the FTD mark and have enjoyed revenues in excess
of $500 million. Due to Complainant’s
substantial promotion, FTD has developed into one of the world’s most powerful
commercial symbols. Moreover,
Complainant supports approximately 14,000 independent retail florists in 150
countries under its FTD mark. The mark
is primarily responsible for Complainant’s overall goodwill estimated at $65
million.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on July 3, 2001. Respondent initially linked the disputed domain name to a website
at <iflorist.com>, a competitor of Complainant’s that offers floral
products and services over the Internet.
When contacted by Complainant, the owner of <iflorist.com> website
denied any connection with Respondent.
The domain name has since been deactivated, currently providing a page
that reads “No Such Page.”
DISCUSSION
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 the 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 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.
Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant
has legal rights to its FTD mark through its federal registration of the mark.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights
or Legitimate Interests
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent’s
use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known FTD mark
evidences a willingness to trade on Complainant’s goodwill, and indicates
Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June
19, 2000) (finding that, given the long
use and fame of the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent’s conduct is evidence of
bad faith); see also Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the
Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants
suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”).
Respondent’s
use of the confusingly similar domain name to link to the website of one of
Complainant’s competitors indicates bad faith use and registration pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Southern Exposure
v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000)
(finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a
website that competed with Complainant’s business).
Because Complainant’s FTD mark is arbitrary,
fanciful, and unique, Respondent is not likely to have independently devised
the domain name; rather, due to the fame of Complainant’s mark Respondent is assumed
to have had notice of the FTD mark at the time of registration. Registration of
an infringing domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of the
respective mark further demonstrates bad faith under the Policy. See
Nintendo of Am. Inc v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO
Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where Complainant’s marks were unique, the
possibility that Respondent devised the
domain names independently was remote, and the domain names incorporated
Complainant’s entire mark); see also Samsonite
Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding
that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a
commonly known mark at the time of registration).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN policy, the Panel
concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice,
Supreme Court (Ret.)
Dated:
March 25, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page