Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0427.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:20:08+00:00

Document:
Respondent registered the domain name <rollerblading.com> and operates a web site at that address relating to the sport of in-line skating. The content of the web site does not originate with Complainant. Respondent�s web site seeks subscribers and investors, but there is no indication that Respondent seeks to sell the domain name for profit. See Complaint, Exhibit A.
Complainant claims that Respondent uses ROLLERBLADE as a "metatag" to attract Internet users to its site, but Complainant has not submitted any evidence of the html source document for Respondent�s site.
Complainant also claims that Respondent�s application to register ROLLERBLADING.COM as a trademark was rejected by the U.S. P.T.O. due to conflicts with Complainant�s prior registrations for ROLLERBLADE.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the substantive part of its famous mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name is registered and used in bad faith in an intentional attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent�s web site for commercial gain.
The first issue is whether the Panel will grant Complainant�s request to file a reply. Complainant argues that it should be permitted to respond to Respondent�s attack on the validity of its mark, which it could not have anticipated in its complaint.
Although the Rules do not provide for a reply as of right, some Panels have considered unsolicited replies. See, e.g., Cedar Trade Associates, Inc. v. Ricks, ICANN Case No. FA0002000093633; Aero-Turbine, Inc. v. Mcayman, Ltd., ICANN Case No. FA000200093675; Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour COOP of Puerto Rico, ICANN Case No. FA0001000092524; Heelquick!, Inc. v. Goldman, et al., ICANN Case No. FA0001000092527. Other Panel�s have refused to consider such submissions. See, e.g. Easyjet Airline Co., Ltd. v. Steggles, ICANN Case No. D2000-0024; J.P.Morgan v. Resource Marketing, ICANN Case No. D2000-0035; Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v. Pop Data Technologies, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0166; Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0270.
We side with the decisions that have not considered additional submissions, and deny Complainant�s request to file a reply. The Policy and Rules demonstrate a strong preference for single submissions by the parties absent extraordinary circumstances. We believe this is a wise procedure given the nature of these proceedings. Although Complainant may have been surprised by the breadth of Respondent�s response, we do not find this to be an extraordinary circumstance.
In this case, we find that the domain name <rollerblading.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant�s mark ROLLERBLADE. This comparison is based merely on the terms at issue, without considering the manner in which they are actually used.
Although Complainant�s trademark rights in ROLLERBLADE long predate this dispute, respondent argues that Complainant lack rights in the mark because it has become generic. Indeed, genericness, if established, will defeat a claim of trademark rights, even in a mark which is the subject of an incontestable registration. See Windsurfing International, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 613 F.Supp 933 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), aff�d in part and reversed in part 782 F.2d 995 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, because of our findings below, it is not necessary for us to determine whether or not Complainant�s mark has become generic. Instead, we focus on the domain name itself, <rollerblading.com>, which is similar but not identical to Complainant�s mark.
B. Respondent�s Legitimate Interest In The Domain Name.
Complainant contends that Respondent�s use cannot be bona fide because it is derived from and trades upon Complainant�s famous mark. However, the evidence appears to support Respondent�s claim that it is merely seeking to trade on the popularity of a term used generically by many people for a popular sport. This is not a case where the defendant has converted a famous mark into a verb to benefit from association with the mark. Instead, this appears to be a case where the public created a generic term derived from Complainant�s mark, and Respondent has used that term in a manner consistent with common public use.
Here, there is no evidence that Respondent registered and used the domain name to profit from resale. Respondent�s use of the domain name to find investors for its business does not satisfy this element.
The claim of bad faith registration and use rests on the claim that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant�s mark. The element of intent is a critical aspect of this claim. The mere presence of a likelihood of confusion or dilution is not sufficient to find bad faith under the Policy. Based on the evidence presented, we do not believe that Complainant has met its burden on this point. Although it is apparent that the term "rollerblading" is a derivative of Complainant�s mark ROLLERBLADE, Respondent has presented ample evidence that the term "rollerblading" is now commonly used by third parties as a generic term for the sport of in-line skating. Thus, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name <rollerblading.com> in an intentional attempt to attract Internet users by using the common name for a popular sport, not by creating confusion with Complainant�s mark.
Complainant suggests that Respondent has improperly used Complainant�s mark in metatags for its site. Although such evidence could be relevant to determining Respondent�s intent in selecting its domain name, we have no specific evidence before us. Further, the use another�s mark in metatags is beyond the scope of issues this Panel is authorized to address in this proceeding.
We note that this decision should not be interpreted as stating that Complainant�s mark is generic or that Respondent�s use is not likely to dilute or cause confusion with Complainant�s mark. Those issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding and would require resolution by a court based on a full record of the evidence.

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