Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1595.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:40:24+00:00

Document:
WQ, Inc., dba Window Quilt v. Gordon's Window Décor, Inc.
Complainant is WQ, Inc., dba Window Quilt of Brattleboro, Vermont, United States of America, represented by Stimmel, Stimmel & Smith, United States of America.
Respondent is Gordon's Window Décor, Inc. of Essex Junction, Vermont, United States of America, represented by Gravel and Shea, Burlington, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <windowquilts.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and <1windowquilts.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (collectively, the “Domain Names”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2009. On that same day the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC and 1&1 Internet AG a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On November 27, 2009 and November 30, 2009, 1&1 Internet AG and Network Solutions, LLC respectively transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 2, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 22, 2009. The Response was filed with the Center on December 22, 2009.
The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras as the sole panelist in this matter on December 28, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
Complainant WQ, Inc. dba Window Quilt is the manufacturer of WINDOW QUILT brand insulated window shades. Mr. Digney is Complainant's President. Complainant purchased the assets of the Window Quilt Company including the WINDOW QUILT trademark about a year and a half ago from its previous owner, the Warm Company. WINDOW QUILT brand window shades have been manufactured for more than three decades.
Complainant is the owner of a federal trademark registration for WINDOW QUILT, issued by the United States Trademark Office (Reg. No. 1,188,641) (“the WINDOW QUILT Mark”) on February 2, 1982. The first use of the WINDOW QUILT Mark in commerce was in August 1978. Complainant also conducts its business using the <windowquilt.com> domain name.
Complainant is the only nationally authorized seller of WINDOW QUILT brand window covering online. All sales of such window covering by third parties require a written dealership agreement with Complainant.
Respondent Gordon's Window Décor, Inc., is in the business of designing, manufacturing and installing window treatments and related products including cellular insulating shades. It has four showrooms located in Vermont, New York, and Virginia. It also conducts its business online.
At one time, Respondent was a WINDOW QUILT dealer and sold WINDOW QUILT brand products. Respondent concedes that it does not have a dealership agreement with Complainant to sell WINDOW QUILT brand window coverings.
The Domain Names are identical to and confusingly similar with the WINDOW QUILT Mark. They completely incorporate that Mark. The domain name <windowquilts.com> is simply a pluralized version of Complainant's <windowquilt.com> domain name and WINDOW QUILT Mark. The only differences between <1windowquilts.com> and the WINDOW QUILT Mark are that the domain name is pluralized, and it adds the number “1” at the beginning.
Respondent has never been commonly known by the name “Window Quilt” and Respondent acknowledges on its website that WINDOW QUILT is a registered trademark owned by Complainant. Complainant is the exclusive manufacturer of Window Quilt products and the sole owner of the manufacturing company and the WINDOW QUILT Mark. Respondent has no interest in the Complainant's Company or in the WINDOW QUILT Mark. Furthermore, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. The website is strictly for commercial purposes and not for any fair or bona fide use of the WINDOW QUILT Mark since all uses of the website distract Internet users from the legitimate Window Quilt website to Respondent's website where it sells competing products. Respondent's websites were initially created by Respondent to sell Window Quilt products at a time when Respondent was an authorized dealer selling Window Quilt products. Respondent's relationship with Window Quilt has ceased. Respondent now has no legitimate purpose or need for the Domain Names.
Evidence of Respondent's bad faith includes in summary: (1) Respondent sought to transfer the Domain Names for a sum of money in excess of the amounts it has spent directly related to the Domain Names (USD 50,000); (2) Respondent is using the Domain Names to divert customers from Complainant to Respondent and offering them competitive products; (3) Respondent is using the Domain Names to disrupt Complainant's business. A search of the Alexa database reveals that the domain <1windowquilts.com> is linked from at least fifty other websites, so visitors to a great number of other websites are directed to Respondent's web site, even though they think they are going to a website for Complainant's products; (4) once at Respondent's site, consumers are not immediately aware that they are not at the genuine WINDOW QUILT website. Frustrated customers will either not look for Complainant's website or will be directed to a competitive product by Respondent; (5) in response to a cease and desist letter Respondent did not transfer the Domain Names as requested, but changed the content of its web site a few times, each time, however, the contents of the “new” Home page maintain a deceptive association with Complainant. Furthermore, when Respondent changed the content of its websites, it only changed the “Home” or “…/index.html” pages. The remainder of the websites (more than seventeen web pages) were not changed or taken down. They are still available to Internet users who search the term “Window Quilt” or who may have bookmarked a discrete page (see, e.g., http://www.windowquilts.com/about.html). The revisions of the “Home” pages act as an admission by Respondent that its former “Home” pages were bad faith uses under the Policy; (6) the pages that are still available online seem to inform potential customers how to order a Window Quilt brand product, but they actually lead potential customers to Respondent's phone number; and (7) in the source code for each of the web pages associated with each of Respondent's websites, it uses meta-tags including: “window quilts” (plural), “Window Quilt” (singular and capitalized), and “windowquilts” (one word, plural).
(4) Respondent registered <1windowquilts.com> on September 6, 2000. It did not use Windowquilt.com because Respondent was not that company and because it thought having the “1” as the first digit would help searches in alphabetical directory listings. Respondent bought the domain name <windowquilts.com> in September 2003 on the open market. The Window Quilt Company at the time was not interested in buying it and Respondent felt it needed to be protected but continued to use 1WindowQuilt.com.
(13) Respondent's lawyer advised Respondent to make changes to the site immediately while it tried to reach a solution (i.e., buying Respondent's site).
Based on Complainant's uncontested evidence of both the use of the WINDOW QUILT Mark and the United States trademark registration for it, the Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the WINDOW QUILT Mark.
The Domain Names <windowquilts.com> and <1windowquilts.com> incorporate in their entirety the WINDOW QUILT Mark. Where a domain name incorporates a complainant's mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. Arthur Wrangle, WIPO Case No. D2005-1105. Adding an “s” at the end and/or a “1” at the beginning of the WINDOW QUILT Mark does not alleviate the confusion. Furthermore, Respondent admits the Domain Names are similar to the WINDOW QUILT Mark because it was the on-line source for WINDOW QUILT brand products for the last 10 years and this similarity helped customers find Respondent's site. According to Respondent, “by design” it had a name similar to the product name.
Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights to, nor legitimate interests in, the Domain Names. First and foremost is the undisputed fact that Complainant is the exclusive owner of rights to the WINDOW QUILT Mark and the company has not given Respondent any rights, license, or permission to use the mark for any purpose including in the Domain Names. Respondent acknowledges that it is no longer a distributor of WINDOW QUILT brand products but refuses to accept that it no longer has rights to use the WINDOW QUILT Mark. Complainant has put Respondent on notice multiple times (e.g., by a cease and desist letter made of record here) that it has exclusive rights in the WINDOW QUILT Mark and that Respondent's use of the Domain Names, among other things, infringes those rights.
The Panel also finds that Respondent is making a commercial use of the Domain Names with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. There is no dispute Respondent registered the Domain Names and built the window quilt website for commercial purposes – to sell WINDOW QUILT brand products – at a time when it was in business with prior owners of the WINDOW QUILT Mark. Insofar as Respondent is no longer a distributor of WINDOW QUILT brand products, and does not have the right to use the WINDOW QUILT Mark, the question arises why would Respondent insist on continuing to use the Domain Names and the associated window quilt website after it is no longer a distributor of WINDOW QUILT brand products and repeated demands to cease using the WINDOW QUILT Mark.
- The Respondent must try not to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.
See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. It is uncontroverted that Respondent is no longer a distributor or permitted to offer WINDOW QUILT brand products. However, Respondent appears to be offering the WINDOW QUILT brand products using the Domain Names, using the WINDOW QUILT Mark on the window quilt website and on its Gordon Window Décor website and appearing to offer WINDOW QUILT brand products (e.g., drawings of the product, specifications for the product, directions for measuring windows for the product). Insofar as Respondent can no longer use the WINDOW QUILT Mark or sell the WINDOW QUILT brand products the only conceivable purpose to be gained in maintaining the window quilt website and using the Domain Names is to gain contact to Complainant's customers to sell them whatever products it has a right to sell, including products it manufacturers and products of other manufacturers. Furthermore, the window quilt website does not inform customers Respondent is no longer able to sell WINDOW QUILT brand products or that it does not have a business relationship with Complainant. In fact the site suggests the opposite. Although the Panel finds that Respondent has not cornered the market in domain names incorporating the WINDOW QUILT Mark, Respondent's activities fall within the ambit of the other factors for showing no bona fide use under the Policy.
These criteria are not exclusive and the panel may conclude that respondent acted in bad faith where other circumstances reveal the bad faith nature of the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
1. We have an inventory of original Window Quilt parts that we built up knowing that the company was going to be shut down, for the fourth time, while it went through another sale. We would like to sell that inventory and believe we have a right to do so.
2. Through our own efforts, we have built up customer relationships over the last 10 years. They want to be able to find us and we want them to find us. Further, we feel these customers, and their good will, are of value and an asset of our company.
The Panel also agrees with Complainant that Respondent's failure to transfer the Domain Names and its failure to modify the “window quilt” website to cease its infringing and deceptive nature or to take it down completely is further evidence of bad faith. And these activities – using confusingly similar Domain Names and a deceptive website – also constitute bad faith disruption of a business competitor.
In its response, Respondent mentions, without more, the doctrine of laches stating: “Complainant knew (or reasonably should have known, based on due diligence) of my now 10 year old web site when he purchased the company. He has waited too long to complain and per the doctrine of laches, what he is asking for is unfair.” Respondent has not cited any support for whether laches can even be alleged in these UDRP proceedings. As far as the Panel is concerned this issue is a nonstarter insofar as laches has no application under the Policy. Those Characters From Cleveland Inc. v. User51235 (38so92lf@whois-privacy.net), WIPO Case No. D2006-0950; First Franklin Financial Corporation and National City Corporation v. The Franklin Savings and Loan Company, WIPO Case No. D2005-0762. Furthermore, Respondent did not even attempt to demonstrate how Complainant's activities constituted laches or how Respondent would be entitled to a ruling of laches based on its own conduct. See, e.g., National Football League v. Alan D. Bachand, Nathalie M. Bachand d/b/a superbowl-rooms.com, WIPO Case No. D2009-0121 (“Respondent would be ineligible for relief under an equitable doctrine such as laches because of Respondent's own ‘unclean hands' (another equitable concept). Specifically, after being made aware in October 2005 of Complainant's objections to the unauthorized use of the SUPER BOWL mark in a domain name or otherwise, Respondent proceeded to register, over the next three years, several of the SUPER BOWL-formative Domain Names now at issue in this case.”).
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names <windowquilts.com> and <1windowquilts.com> be transferred to Complainant.

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