Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/pet-warehouse-v-pets-com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:25:05+00:00

Document:
Domain name - Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Service mark - Trademark - Secondary meaning - Identical - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - Legitimate rights - Anti-cybersquatting - Consumer confusion - Generic term - Suggestive mark.
Complainant has used service mark, Pet Warehouse in commerce but was not registrant of the mark. Respondent is the beneficial owner of the domain name, petwarehouse.com. Complainant alleged that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to its service mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has not established rights in the trademark Pet Warehouse. The federal court has previously held that similar warehouse and pet marks to be generic. Also, Complainant had been denied service mark registration. Thus, it has no exclusive rights to the mark. Respondent has provided sufficient evidence to undermine Complainants claim of service mark distinctiveness. Pet Warehouse is not a suggestive mark; it is descriptive. The combination of the terms does not constitute distinctness or have a secondary meaning. Since it has been established that Complainant does not have rights to the name, it is not necessary to consider whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
A determination that the name Pet Warehouse is generic or descriptive without secondary meaning has not been made. There are, however, serious questions as to whether Complainant has proprietary rights to the name. This question is best left to a court or trademark office tribunal.
A number of Complainants competitors use the name Pet Warehouse in business. There is no evidence that would indicate that consumers of pet supplies connect the words pet warehouse with Complainant, as opposed to the numerous other pet warehouse stores, or with the concept of the pet warehouse as a type of business entity.
Although Complainant has not demonstrated its exclusive right to that name, neither has it evidenced bad faith.
Mil-Mar Shoe v. Shonac, 75 F. 3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1996).
Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000).
Warehouse Foods, Inc. v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 223. U.S.P.Q. 892 (N.D. Fla. 1984).
b. On March 2, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement of the proceeding to the Respondent via e-mail, telefax, and courier mail. On March 2, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint to ICANN, Network Solutions and Complainants authorized representative.
The Panel has received through WIPO one supplemental transmission from Respondent of a recent decision by another Administrative Panel. This document was also transmitted via WIPO to Complainant. Because this submission was filed on April 4, 2000, prior to the Panels substantive review of this matter, and because Respondent merely provided a copy of the decision without any argument, the Panel has concluded that it is appropriate to accept this supplemental submission. The Panel has not received any requests from Complainant or Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the parties. The proceedings have been conducted in English.
Respondent, Pets.Com, Inc., is the beneficial holder of the domain name "petwarehouse.com", registered with Network Solutions on June 4, 1998. "PetWarehouse.com" is designated as the registrant of such domain name according to a Network Solutions WHOIS database query printout of February 15, 2000, furnished by Complainant (Complaint, Annex A). Said printout designates "bayard@pets.com" as the Administrative Contact for the Registrant, and includes the physical address of Respondent (with a single letter typographical error). Respondent has provided evidence that the founder of Pets.Com registered "petwarehouse.com" prior to deciding on the name of his Pets.Com, Inc. business venture (Response, Exhibit A.1, Declaration of Greg McLemore). Prior to transfer of registration of the disputed domain name to Pets.Com, Inc., the name was beneficially held by another business entity ("Web Magic"), also owned by Respondents founder, Greg McLemore (Id.). There is no evidence of difficulty on the part of any party in contacting Respondent as beneficial holder of the "petwarehouse.com" domain name, nor of Respondent attempting to disclaim registration or control over said domain name.
The beneficial owner of Complainant, Pet Warehouse, is Greico Entrerprises, Inc. ("Greico") (Complaint, Annex C). On January 10, 1995, Greico submitted an application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (U.S. PTO) for registration of the service mark, "Pet Warehouse" (Response, Exhibit F). That application was accorded a filing date of January 12, 1995, and Serial No. 74/620,416. The application was declared abandoned on June 5, 1997, by the U.S. PTO after Greico failed to respond to the U.S. PTOs final refusal to register decision (Id., U.S. PTO current status printout).
Complainant distributes by mail a substantial quantity of catalogues that prominently display the name "Pet Warehouse". Complainant has used the name "Pet Warehouse" in connection with its mail order catalog business since 1986 (Complaint, para. 12, and Annex F, Declaration of Donald Laden). Circulation of Complainants catalogs presently exceeds 5 million units annually (Id.). Complainant currently uses the domain name "petwhse.com" in connection with its Internet pet supply business website (Id., Annex I).
Complainant states that it has used the service mark "Pet Warehouse" in commerce since at least as early as 1986 (Complaint, para. 12). See Factual Backgound, supra. It indicates that its catalogue customers are primarily retail end-users. It maintains an Internet retail services website under the domain name "petwhse.com". Respondent states: "Unfortunately, due to Respondents registration and use of the domain name petwarehouse.com, consumers are forced to search for the site rather than go to what would be the obvious location, www.petwarehouse.com." (Id.).
"The domain name at issue, petwarehouse.com, is identical or confusingly similar to Pet Warehouses PET WAREHOUSE service mark.
"PetWarehouse.com is merely an alter ego set up to conceal the identity of the true owner of the petwarehouse.com domain name, namely, Pets.com.
"Respondents provision of false contact information constitutes bad faith as defined by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(VII) (describing the persons provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for registration of the domain name as bad faith under the statute.
Pet Warehouse respectfully submits that bad faith under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act should constitute bad faith under the non-exclusive list of bad faith factors enumerated in the ICANN Policy. See Policy at Para. 4. b." (Id., para. 12.A).
Complainant indicates that Respondents founder, Gregory McLemore, was given notice in January 1999 by telephone call from Complainants President, Donald Laden, and "[i]n approximately August 1999, despite having actual knowledge of Pet Warehouse and its service mark rights in the PET WAREHOUSE mark, Respondent caused its petwarehouse.com domain name to link to its competing www.pets.com website.
The www.pets.com website offered, and continues to offer, services in direct competition with Pet Warehouse." (Id., para. 12.B.1).
According to Complainant: "Other consumers finding no content appearing at the site may look to websites such as Networks Solutions Whois lookup to find that a company named PetWarehouse.com owns the petwarehouse.com domain name. This may lead to the mistaken conclusion that Pet Warehouse is related to this entity.
This constitutes bad faith registration and use of a domain name as defined by Paragraph 4.b.iii. of the Policy."
Referring to the circumstance that Respondents founder transferred registration of the disputed domain name to "PetWarehouse.com" subsequent to notice by Complainant of an adverse interest, Complainant states: "This clearly indicates a misappropriation of [Pet Warehouses] goodwill and, therefore, Respondents bad faith.
Respondents bad faith in this regard is further exemplified by its selection of a confusingly similar alter ego, PetWarehouse.com, to use as the Registrant name." (Id.).
"Respondents arguments that the PET WAREHOUSE service mark is unprotectable because it is generic or descriptive are unavailing and should not be perceived as providing a good faith defense.
There is absolutely no evidence that the mark is generic. A generic term is not capable of functioning as a mark because it refers to a genus of which the particular product is a species. See Committee For Idahos High Dessert v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding COMMITTEE FOR IDAHOS HIGH DESERT to be protectable, not generic).
"The PET WAREHOUSE service mark is properly categorized as suggestive of the services. A suggestive mark requires imagination and perception to determine the nature of the goods or services. See The Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc., 689 F.2d 666, 674 (7th Cir. 1982) (holding THE MONEY STORE to be protectable, it is suggestive of money-lending services).
As discussed above, the PET WAREHOUSE mark is used in connection with catalog retail services and related Internet retail services. It does not simply signify a warehouse where pets are kept, which would be the generic use of the phrase. Some degree of imagination is required to ascertain the nature of Pet Warehouses use of the mark. See also Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc., 724 F.2d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding CITIBANC to be protectable, it is suggestive of a modern or urban bank).
"Even if the PET WAREHOUSE mark was held to be descriptive rather than suggestive, Pet Warehouse has used the mark in commerce for more than fourteen years.
This use constitutes prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive as used in connection with Pet Warehouses services. See 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).
Moreover, the PET WAREHOUSE catalog circulation currently exceeds five million units annually.
In addition, Respondents registration of petwarehouse.com under the pseudonym PetWarehouse.com, after being informed of Pet Warehouses service mark rights in PET WAREHOUSE, should entitle Pet Warehouse to a presumption of secondary meaning. See The New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants v. Eric Louis Assocs., Inc., No. 99 CIV. 3030(LBS), 1999 WL 1084220 at * 7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 1999) (defendants use of the nysscpa.com domain name and meta-tag is clear evidence of an attempt to plagiarize the mark).
Respondent notes that Complainants suggestion that five years of use of a mark constitute a prima facie showing of distinctive relates only to registration decisions made in ex parte proceedings at the U.S. PTO, and that Complainants eleven years of use did not suffice to establish distinctiveness regarding its application at the U.S. PTO (id.).
"As to intentional copying, another indicia of secondary meaning, there is no evidence that Pets.Com intentionally copied complainant's PET WAREHOUSE mark or would have any reason to so do.
There is no evidence did Pets.Coms founder was even aware of complainant before registering the domain name when NSI made it available.
"First, Pets.Com registered and commenced plans to use PETWAREHOUSE.COM in connection with a bona fide offering of its goods and services prior to having any notice of this dispute. See, UDRP, ¶4, c. (i). Complainant has submitted no evidence or made any claim to the contrary."
Respondent indicates that its showing of a legitimate interest in the "petwarehouse.com" name requires the dismissal of Complainants complaint, regardless of the adequacy of Complainants case (Id.).
iii. Respondents domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In this proceeding, Complainant has failed to establish the first element necessary to prove that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration. The Panel determines that Complainant has not established rights in the trademark or service mark "Pet Warehouse". In light of this determination, the Panel need not consider whether the domain name "petwarehouse.com" is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants alleged service mark. Nor need the Panel consider whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in "petwarehouse.com", nor whether Respondents registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
There are three factors that argue convincingly against Complainants claim to the service mark "Pet Warehouse". First, two decisions by federal courts in the United States have found arguably similar "warehouse"-formative marks to be generic. Second, the U.S. PTOs rejection of Complainants application for service mark registration denies a presumption of validity to its claim of exclusive rights in that mark. Third, Respondent has provided substantial evidence to undermine Complainants claim of service mark distinctiveness. Knowing this was a factor, Complainant anticipated and tried to neutralize Respondents argument, but the evidence it submitted was not sufficient to overcome Respondent's showing.
a: a wholesale establishment of the service type in which large inventories are carried b: a wholesale establishment operated by a chain store organization" (id., at 2576) [bold in original]. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Mil-Mar Shoe v. Shonac, 75 F. 3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1996), has carefully considered the term "warehouse" as used in the sense of a retail store, and has held that this usage is common or generic in American English. It refused trademark protection for the term "Warehouse Shoes", while also indicating that "Shoe Warehouse" provides an even clearer example of two generic terms that could not be subject to trademark protection (75 F. 3d. at 1160). The Seventh Circuit, 75 F. 3d at 1161, cited with favor an earlier district court decision, Warehouse Foods, Inc. v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 223. U.S.P.Q. 892 (N.D. Fla. 1984), denying trademark protection to "Warehouse Foods" on grounds that the two generic words in combination were in themselves a generic designation.
The Panel does not accept Complainants suggestion that "Pet Warehouse" is a suggestive mark, such that Complainant should not be required to prove secondary meaning. No imagination is required to associate the term with a retail establishment selling pet supplies. That the business is conducted principally by catalog and mail order makes it no less of a retail sales establishment than a store located in a shopping mall. The claimed mark is descriptive, at best. In light of the Seventh Circuits decision in Mil-Mar regarding the word "warehouse", the Panel considers the Complainant to shoulder a heavy burden to demonstrate that this generic word, combined with the generic word "pet", together forms a distinctive service mark.
As the second major factor influencing the Panels decision, Respondent has informed the Panel that Complainants attempt to register the service mark "Pet Warehouse" was rejected by the U.S. PTO. As a consequence, Complainant does not enjoy any presumption of secondary meaning for its claimed service mark, and shoulders the burden of establishing distinctiveness, assuming that the name is not generic (75 F. 3d at 1156). The successful registration of a trademark or service mark is not a condition to ownership of rights in that mark either as a matter of invoking protection against infringement, or as a matter of pursuing a claim against abusive domain name registration. However, under U.S. trademark law, only registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.
Complainants primary evidence of secondary meaning and distinctiveness is a high volume of catalogue distribution over a substantial period of time using the name "Pet Warehouse". It must be noted that when Complainant filed its service mark application with the U.S. PTO, it transmitted a copy of its catalog cover showing use of the name "Pet Warehouse" (Response, Exhibit F). Apparently, the U.S. PTO did not find the evidence of the catalog or its distribution convincing. Nor does the Panel. Distinctiveness and secondary meaning are demonstrated by showing that the relevant public associates a service with a particular source. Evidence of the sources publication of its name does not, standing alone, prove that connection.
Complainant has also indicated that several of its customers have complained about having difficulty locating its website because Complainant cannot use "petwarehouse.com" as its domain name (see Parties Contentions, supra). This may indicate that several individuals connect Complainants name with its business as a source of services. It may also indicate that some consumers view "petwarehouse.com" as a good, descriptive URL for Complainants business. In any event, evidence of a few consumers experiencing difficulty locating what is argued to be a major nationwide source of supply does not convince the Panel that the relevant public strongly associates "Pet Warehouse" with a specific source of services.
As the third factor influencing the Panels decision, the Respondent has furnished substantial evidence that the name "Pet Warehouse" is in use in the United States by a number of businesses that presumably compete with Complainant (Response, Exhibit E). At least two of these businesses (one named "Pets Warehouse") allegedly commenced operation prior to Complainant (Response, Exhibits C and D). Respondent has presented evidence of well over a dozen U.S. businesses that use the words "pet warehouse" as at least part of their name (Response, Exhibit E). In addition, Respondent has presented substantial evidence in the form of reprints of news reports that the term "pet warehouse" is commonly used in American English as a generic term to refer to large pet supply stores (Response, Exhibit B). Complainant has not presented the Panel with evidence of prior attempts to enjoin others from using what it claims to be its exclusive service mark, or the results of those efforts. It has not presented evidence that would indicate that consumers of pet supplies connect the words "pet warehouse" with itself, as opposed to the numerous other "pet warehouse" stores in the United States, or with the concept of the "pet warehouse" as a type of business entity.
It is important to note that this Panel has not made a determination that the name "Pet Warehouse" is generic or descriptive without secondary meaning. Rather, based on the record before us, serious questions as to whether Complainant has any proprietary rights require us to reject Complainants claim. The ultimate decision as to whether Complainant does or does not have proprietary rights is better left to a court or trademark office tribunal.
The Panel denies Respondents request for a determination that Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking within the meaning of Paragraph 15(e) of the Policy. Complainant has presented substantial evidence of its use of the name "Pet Warehouse" in commerce, and it has an understandable interest in seeking to control the use of that name by others. Although Complainant has not demonstrated its exclusive right to that name, neither has it evidenced bad faith by initiating these proceedings.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1125
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v.