Source: https://internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2000/d2000-0341.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:03:47+00:00

Document:
Apple Computer, Inc. v. DomainHouse.com, Inc.
The Complainant is Apple Computer, Inc., a corporation organized in the State of Delaware, United States of America (USA), with place of business in Cupertino, California, USA.
The Respondent is DomainHouse.com, Inc., with place of business in Pasadena, California, USA.
The disputed domain name is "quicktime.net".
April 27, 2000, and by courier mail received by WIPO on May 1, 2000. Payment by Complainant of the requisite filing fees accompanied the courier mailing. On April 28, 2000, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, Register.com, Inc.
b. On May 9, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail and courier mail.
c. A response from Respondent was received via e-mail by WIPO on May 27, 2000, and received by WIPO via courier mail on May 29, 2000. Respondent also transmitted the response to Complainant.
d. On June 15, 2000, WIPO invited the undersigned to serve as panelist in this administrative proceeding, subject to receipt of an executed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence ("Statement and Declaration"). On June 15, 2000, the undersigned transmitted by fax the executed Statement and Declaration to WIPO.
On June 19, 2000, Complainant and Respondent were notified by WIPO of the appointment of the undersigned sole panelist as the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") in this matter. WIPO notified the Panel that, absent exceptional circumstances, it would be required to forward its decision to WIPO by July 3, 2000. On June 19, 2000, the Panel received an electronic file in this matter by e-mail from WIPO. The Panel subsequently received a hard copy of the file in this matter by courier mail from WIPO.
Complainant is the holder of active trademark registrations for the word mark "QUICKTIME" in ten countries or regions outside the United States, including Canada (No. TMA497874, registered July 27, 1998), Austria (No. 154039, registered August 22, 1994), Benelux (No. 548574, published December 1, 1994), Denmark (No. VR 798 1995, registered February 3, 1995), France (No. 94 515520, published February 10, 1995), Germany (No. 2088793, registered December 30, 1994), Italy (No. 694901, registered December 12, 1996), Spain (App. No. 1815480 M, published June 16, 1994), Switzerland (No. 422068, published April 30, 1996), and the United Kingdom (No. B1569622, registered July 28, 1995)(Complaint, para. 12 and Exhibit C). These registrations are valid and subsisting. Complainant formerly held a trademark registration for the word mark "QUICKTIME" on the Principal Register at the USPTO (No. 1,747,719, registered January 19, 1993). This registration expired. Complainant has submitted an application to re-register the mark on the Principal Register (Ser. No. 75-635236, filed October 30, 1999)(id.). The "QUICKTIME" mark has been used in commerce since at least 1993 (based on the expired U.S. registration), and continues to be used in commerce (id., Exhibit D).
Complainant has registered and uses the domain name "quicktime.com". According to a Network Solutions’ WHOIS database query, this domain name was registered on May 1, 1996 (Panel’s Network Solutions’ WHOIS database query of July 2, 2000).
Registrar.com’s WHOIS database query response (Complaint, Annex A and Registrar.com’s April 28, 2000 response to WIPO verification request) indicates that "DomainHouse.com, Inc.", with Administrative Contact at "Martinez, Wilson", is registrant of the domain name "quicktime.net". The record of this registration was created on February 4, 2000, and was last updated on April 28, 2000 (id.).
Respondent maintains a website at "www.domainhouse.com" that offers domain names for sale. There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding that the disputed domain name is or has been offered for sale on Respondent’s website. A standard format register.com announcement of registration appears at the website address identified by the disputed domain name (Complaint, Exhibit E).
Respondent has furnished a copy of an offer extended to it by Browser Media LLC, dated March 29, 2000 to enter into a website development agreement. This is a standard form agreement with no reference to the disputed domain name. The agreement is executed by Browser Media LLC. It is not executed by Respondent.
Complainant states: "The Complainant is the owner of the trademark QUICKTIME for computer software products. The mark has been in use with the goods since 1991, and the Complainant owned U.S. Registration No. 1,747,719 which registered on January 19, 1993 but inadvertently expired. In any case, Complainant has refiled an application for U.S. Registration of the mark and has received Serial No. 75/635,236." (Complaint, para. 12 and Exhibit C) Complainant indicates that it is the holder of trademark registrations in ten countries or regions outside the United States for the word mark "QUICKTIME" (id.) (See Factual Background, supra).
"The Complainant is known throughout the world as offering software products under the mark QUICKTIME. Enclosed please see promotional material for QUICKTIME … from the Complainant’s web site which may be found at www.quicktime.com.
"The second level domain name in the address www.quicktime.net is identical to the Complainant’s trademark QUICKTIME. Persons encountering the subject domain name will believe it emanates from, is endorsed by, or is licensed by Complainant.
"The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name. Further, the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in the name. In addition, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
Complainant requests that the Panel ask the Registrar to transfer the domain name "quicktime.net" from Respondent to it (id., para. 13).
"The words ‘quick’ and ‘time’ are generic words. ‘Quick’ means moving or functioning rapidly and energetically; speedy. ‘Time’ means a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Complainant does not enjoy the presumption of secondary meaning because of its cancelled trademark, and shoulders the burden of establishing distinctiveness. Complainant has not offered proof as to the distinctiveness of its mark.
"Even if "quicktime" is a valid registered trademark, consumers are not likely to confuse "Apple.com" which sells computers and softwares, with "DomainHouse.com" a domain name exchange website. The parties are not competitors, and are doing business in different business classifications. Complainant has not shown actual consumer confusion resulting from use or non-use of the mark.
"DomainHouse.com, Inc. is a domain name exchange, web hosting and development company. We have filed a trademark application on our name and slogan. Our business model is to serve as an idea engine to help individuals and businesses in their selection of domain names. There are primarily three conceptual guidelines in choosing the domains that we register. (1) Common phrases in the English language, such as theamericandream.com, bestregards.org, oneonone.net, manofthehour.com. noplacetohide.com etc. (2) Misspelled generic words such as esqrow.com, leqal, buyss, beerr, sportss, bedss, tickett etc. Most generic words are already taken; we believe that misspelled generic words will have its own place in domain name use due to its brevity. It also has trademarkability advantage, esqrow.com is more trademarkable than escrow.com, because it is a made up word therefore distinctive rather than descriptive. (3) The third concept is to add the "i" and "e" after the word, like credite.com, financee.com, housei.com, insuree.com etc. Same idea brevity, simple, easy to spell and remember.
"This is the first and only domain name dispute filed against our company. We are in the same situation and circumstances, when the Complainant found us with no malice on February 29, 2000, except for the passage of time (3 months). In Meredith corp. vs. CityHome, Inc. the honorable panelist concluded that non-use of the domain name for eight months is not determinative of bad faith.
Complainant is the holder of trademark registrations for the word mark "QUICKTIME" in ten countries or regions outside the United States (see Factual Background). A number of such registrations are in member states of the European Union (EU) (i.e., Austria, Benelux, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom). Registration of a trademark in a member state of the EU confers a presumption of validity of the mark (see First Trade Marks Directive, arts. 3 & 4). 2 The Panel determines that Complainant has rights in the trademark "QUICKTIME" in member states of the EU. Moreover, although Complainant’s trademark registration in the United States has expired, and an application for re-registration confers no presumption of validity, Complainant’s long use in U.S. commerce of the "QUICKTIME" mark, combined with its prior registration of the mark, persuades the Panel that Complainant has rights in the mark in the United States 3. The Panel determines that Complainant has rights in the trademark "QUICKTIME" within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Based on the January 19, 1993 date of Complainant’s initial U.S. registration of the trademark "QUICKTIME" (the earliest of the registrations submitted in this proceeding by Complainant), and without prejudice to whether Complainant may hold earlier-arising rights in the mark, the Panel determines that Complainant’s rights in the trademark arose prior to Respondent’s registration, on February 4, 2000, of the disputed domain name "quicktime.net".
Respondent has registered the domain name "quicktime.net". This name is identical to Complainant’s trademark "QUICKTIME", except that (1) the domain name adds the generic top-level domain name ".net", and (2) the domain name employs lower case letters, while the trademark is generally used with the letters "Q" and "T" capitalized (i.e., "QuickTime")(see Complaint, Exhibit D).
Insofar as domain names are not case sensitive, the Panel concludes that use of the lower case letter format in "quicktime.net" is a difference without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing "quicktime.net" to "QuickTime" 4. Similarly, the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ".net" is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ".net" is one of only several such gTLDs, and ".net" does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services 5.
For purposes of this proceeding, it is unnecessary to decide whether, in light of these factors, Respondent’s domain name is "identical" to Complainant’s trademark, since Respondent’s domain name "quicktime.net" is without doubt confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark "QUICKTIME".
Respondent has acknowledged that it has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and it has not suggested that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has, however, suggested that it has prepared to use the domain name to establish a website devoted to presenting information about parenting for non-commercial purposes. The Panel notes that while paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy refers to "preparations to use" a domain name in the context of offering goods or services, paragraph 4(c)(iii) refers only to the active "making" of a "legitimate noncommercial use". The express language of the Policy indicates that its drafters intended to limit the circumstances in which legitimate noncommercial use could successfully be claimed to those circumstances in which a respondent is "making" use. Applying the express language of the Policy to Respondent’s claim of legitimate noncommercial use, the Panel finds that Respondent is not "making" such legitimate non-commercial use.
Respondent, however, asserts that it would or might have made such use, but for the receipt of a cease and desist notice from Complainant that was sent shortly following its registration of the disputed domain name. As evidence of its intention, it proffers an unexecuted (by it) standard form website development contract that makes no reference to the disputed domain name or to the Respondent’s alleged intention for registration.
Although the Panel accepts that receipt of a cease and desist letter might well persuade a domain name registrant from using a name pending resolution of controversy, the Panel does not find Respondent’s evidence or explanation persuasive. Respondent, on its own behalf, has made clear that it is in the business of developing, warehousing and selling domain names. It has gone to some lengths to justify this practice. The development of a noncommercial website devoted to parenting and childcare is sufficiently remote from the ordinary object and purpose of Respondent’s activities to demand more concrete evidence of its intention. The mere hypothesis of a legitimate noncommercial use under the present circumstances does not suffice to establish a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Respondent observes that offering for sale and selling domain names is an inherently legitimate commercial activity. The leading domain name registrars offer or plan to offer their services to assist domain name registrants to advertise and sell names they have previously registered. Respondent is in the business of developing and selling domain names. Respondent claims to have developed combinations of generic or common descriptive terms, or misspellings of such terms, that will appeal to purchasers of domain names.
In several earlier administrative proceedings conducted under the Policy, this sole panelist has determined that offers to sell to the public at large domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others may constitute bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy 6. This is based on the nonexhaustive character of the express list of bad faith factors in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, and the lack of a justification for awarding financial gain to persons for the mere act of registration of the marks of others.
In the present case, Respondent’s business is the development and sale of domain names. Its acknowledged purpose for registering names is to sell them. In light of this evident purpose, the Panel determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention to offer it for sale to the public for valuable consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket costs. The Panel determines that Respondent has acted in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Panel will therefore request the registrar to transfer the domain name "quicktime.net" to the Complainant.
The Panel rejects Respondent’s request for a determination that Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
Based on its finding that the Respondent, DomainHouse.com, Inc., has engaged in abusive registration of the domain name "quicktime.net" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the domain name "quicktime.net" be transferred to the Complainant, Apple Computer, Inc.
2. FIRST COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), OJ L 040 , 11/02/1989 P. 0001 – 0007.
3. Two generic or common descriptive terms may be combined to form a trademark, provided that secondary meaning is established. See, e.g., Mil-Mar Shoe v. Shonac, 75 F. 3d 1153, 1161 and n. 15 (7th Cir. 1996).
5. See Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market, 202 F.3d 489, 498, (2d Cir. 2000), citing Brookfield, id. For purposes of its decision, the Panel need not address whether ".net" may be capable of acquiring secondary meaning in another context.
6. See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044, decided March 16, 2000; General Electric Company v. Online Sales.com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0343, decided June 19, 2000, and; General Electric Company v. John Bakhit, Case No. D2000-0386, decided June 22, 2000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.