Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/casillas-v-maverick/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:35:37+00:00

Document:
Domain name  Domain name dispute resolution policy  Trademark  Service mark  Legitimate rights  Distinctive character  Constructive use.
Complainant operated under, and had an application pending for, the name Casillas Cigars. Respondent registered and used the name casillascigars.com. Complainant alleged that Respondents registered domain name is identical to the Casillas Cigars mark and that Respondent has registered and used the name in bad faith with no legitimate rights or interests in the name.
Complainants application for trademark registration on the Principal Register constitutes constructive use of the mark which satisfies the Policys requirement that the Complainant have rights to the trademark or service mark that is subject to abuse. Respondents mere recollection without documentary support is insufficient to challenge this.
The domain name is undoubtedly confusingly similar to Complainants service mark.
Respondent used the name for a bona fide offering of goods legitimately acquired from Complainant. Complainant orally licensed Respondent to use its mark in a limited capacity. Respondent registered the name well in advance of Complainants grant of license, and Complainant was aware of and participated in Respondents website. In addition, Complainant supplied Respondent with product for sale over the internet. Respondent deactivated the website once the business relationship with Complainant ended. Thus, Respondent had a legitimate interest in the name, and the issue of bad faith registration need not be considered.
Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1047, n.8, (9th Cir. 1999).
Da Costa v. Pubic Employees Relations Commn, 443 So.2d 1036, 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App 1983).
Ingersoll v. Kriseman, 124 B.R. 116, 121 (M.D. Fla. 1991).
Thomas Dillard Dept Stores Inc., 116 F.3d 1432, 1437 (11th Cir. 1997).
America Online, Inc. v. QTR Corp., Forum File No. FA0001000092016 (NAF Feb. 10, 2000).
Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044, decided March 16, 2000.
FaceTIme Communications v. Live Person, Inc., Forum File No. FA0001000092048 (NAF Feb. 18, 2000).
Heel Quik!, Inc. v. Goldman, File No. 92527 (NAF March 1, 2000).
Mary-Lynn Mondich, American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown, Case No. D00-0004 (WIPO Feb. 20, 2000).
Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, Case No. 00-0001 (WIPO Feb. 20, 2000).
Stella Doro Biscuit Co., Inc., v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D00-012 (WIPO Feb. 17, 2000).
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, Case No. D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000).
b) On May 3, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail,telefax and courier mail. WIPO transmitted the notification to Respondent at the separate addresses listed on its Network Solutions registration for Respondent, its Administrative Contact and its Technical Contact. The courier could not complete delivery at the addresses for Respondent and its Administrative Contact, and (per an e-mail exchange with WIPO) the Technical Contact appears to have been unwilling to retransmit the documents it received from WIPO to Respondent. WIPOs attempted fax transmissions to the numbers provided by Respondent were unsuccessful. WIPOs attempted e-mail transmission to the address provided for Respondents Administrative Contact was not successfully delivered (return notification "user unknown").
regarding the status of such applications.
Complainant indicates that it has used "Casillas" and "Casillas Cigars" in commerce in the United States since at least as early as 1973 (id., para. 14), and such information is included on Complainants PTO applications for registration (id., Annex C). Complainant has provided copies of advertising brochures prepared for and used in its "Casillas Cigars" retail business (id.).
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name "casillascigars.com". A Network Solutions WHOIS database query response (Complaint, Annex A) indicates that Maverick Group, Inc., with Administrative Contact at "Provost, Gus", is the registrant of the domain name "casillascigars.com". The record of this registration was created on June 26, 1998, and was last updated on July 24, 1998.
period of time  over two years); Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, Case No. 00-0001 (WIPO Feb. 20, 2000) (respondent/administrative contact asserted no relationship to domain name and asked that his name be removed; domain name was listed on the GreatDomains.com web site for sale; fact of trying to sell it supports finding of bad faith, even though there is no evidence that this was the primary intent when the domain name was registered).
considered. As stated in the ICANN Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (posted October 25, 1999), the delineation of evidence of bad-faith is not intended to be exhaustive. <http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm>. See also Thomas v. Dillard Dept Stores Inc., 116 F.3d 1432, 1437 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that intent can be inferred from conduct as well as circumstances); Ingersoll v. Kriseman, 124 B.R. 116, 121 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (stating that intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence or inferred from actions); Da Costa v. Public Employees Relations Commn, 443 So.2d 1036, 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (stating that intent can be inferred where the result is the reasonably foreseeable consequence of conduct).
35. Additionally, Respondent MAVERICKs continued use of the casillascigars.com domain name to offer the same product as that sold by the Complainant, i.e. cigars, after the termination of its license implies that Respondent intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrants web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as set forth in Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. See FaceTime Communications v. Live Person, Inc., Forum File No. FA0001000092048 (NAF Feb. 18, 2000) (holding that [u]se of marks which are so similar for the same services confuse the public and those desiring to obtain a particular entitys services and products.).
disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration. This sole panelist has in an earlier decision discussed the background of the administrative panel procedure, and the legal characteristics of domain names, and refers to this earlier decision for such discussion 1. The Panel will confine itself to making determinations necessary to resolve this administrative proceeding.
Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), establish procedures intended to assure that respondents are given adequate notice of proceedings commenced against them, and a reasonable opportunity to respond (see, e.g., para. 2(a), Rules).
received actual notice of this proceeding. (See Factual Background, supra). Respondent was well aware of the possibility that this proceeding would be initiated by Complainant, and to the extent that Respondent failed to update its Registration information to allow it to be contacted, difficulties (if any) in respect to notification are due to its own actions or inactions. Moreover, in light of the Panels determination in this proceeding, Respondent has not been prejudiced by lack of actual notice.
of the Lanham Act on the basis of unregistered marks (and common law rights) 2, and U.S. legislation authorizing infringement actions based on abusive domain name registration does not require registration of a mark as a condition for obtaining relief 3. In U.S. law, an application for trademark registration on the Principal Register constitutes constructive use of a mark, contingent on subsequent registration 4.
In this proceeding, Complainant has made a prima facie offering that the "Casillas Cigars" mark is distinctive. Respondent has, in effect, challenged this prima facie offering by suggesting in an e-mail to Complainant that the PTO rejected Respondents application for that mark on the basis that "Casillas" is a surname. However, since Respondent, not Complainant, was acting before the PTO, and Respondent in any case made its assertion as a tentative recollection (and without documentary support), the Panel does not accept this as a valid challenge to the distinctive character asserted by Complainant.
Respondent has not effectively rebutted Complainants claim to rights in the "Casillas Cigars" service mark. Complainants claim to rights in the mark requires it to pass at least two important hurdles in order to meet the test of having acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. "Cigars" is generic and, standing alone, it is not capable of being trademarked. In order to establish trademark rights in a generic term, it must be shown to have acquired secondary meaning in combination with another term or symbol, and courts traditionally have imposed stringent tests to demonstrate such secondary meaning. In addition, "Casillas" is a surname and must be demonstrated to have acquired secondary meaning (in combination with "Cigars"). Complainants claim to rights in the "Casillas Cigars" mark is not strong (e.g., there is limited evidence of the scope of usage and consumer association). However, for purposes of this administrative proceeding, the Panel presumes that Complainant has rights in the service mark, "Casillas Cigars". The Panel makes this determination in order to reach the "legitimate interests" element of Complainants complaint, and without intending to establish evidence of Complainants rights to the mark in any subsequent legal proceedings.
Respondent has registered the domain name "casillascigars.com". This name is identical to Complainants presumptive service mark "Casillas Cigars", except that (1) the domain name eliminates the space between the two words constituting the mark, (2) the domain name adds the generic top-level domain name ".com", and (3) the domain name employs lower case letters, while the service mark is generally used with an initial capital letter on each word. 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 service mark, since Respondents domain name "casillascigars.com" is without doubt confusingly similar to Complainants service mark "Casillas Cigars".
The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in June 1998. Complainant indicates that it orally licensed Respondent to use its mark in connection with a retail store in April or May 1999. Complainant supplied its products to Respondent for sale, and Respondent indicates that it sold those products from its website on the Internet. Complainant did not formally object to Respondents registration and use of the disputed domain name until September 1999.
Complainant alleges in its complaint that Respondent was not authorized to register the disputed domain name or to establish a website. However, Respondent registered the disputed domain name substantially prior to Complainants acknowledged grant of a license for use of Complainants service mark. Respondent has indicated that (a) Respondent designed its website with Complainants knowledge (and participation) and (b) that Complainant supplied it with the product it sold over the Internet. Complainant has not asserted that it was unaware of Respondents domain name registration or website development prior to granting an oral license to use its mark in connection with Respondents retail store.
Complainant has failed to establish the second element necessary for a finding that Respondent engaged in abusive domain name registration. The Panel therefore rejects Complainants claim of abusive domain name registration against Respondent, and denies its request that the Panel ask the registrar to transfer the domain name "casillascigars.com" from Respondent to it.
The Panels determination is limited to the question whether Respondent engaged in abusive domain name registration. This is the boundary line of the Panels authority. The Panel makes no determination regarding the respective rights of the parties in regard to other legal questions.
2. 15 USCS § 1125(a). See, e.g., Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1047, n. 8, (9th Cir.
5. U.S. cyberpiracy prevention legislation protects distinctive and famous marks. In order to be famous, a mark must be distinctive.

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