Source: https://internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2000/d2000-0054.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:49:41+00:00

Document:
On March 7, 2000, the Center received Respondent’s Response by email with hardcopy received on March 9, 2000. On March 10, 2000, the Center sought clarification of certain items in the Response and in correspondence from Complainant. On March 24, 2000, after receiving their completed and signed Statements of Acceptance and Declarations of Impartiality and Independence, the Center notified the parties of the appointment of a three-arbitrator panel consisting of Mr. Richard W. Page as the Presiding Panelist, Mr. Mark Partridge as Complainant’s party-appointed panelist and Mr. G. Gervaise Davis, as Respondent’s party-appointed panelist.
The Panel met by telephone conference call on April 5, 2000. In the Panel’s Procedural Order No.1delivered to the Center and the parties, the Presiding Panelist confirmed the Panel’s finding that the resolution of the present dispute involved extraordinary circumstances warranting the extension of the deadline to deliver the Decision until April 20, 2000.
Telepathy has acquired attractive domains both for use in its own development efforts and for its development partners and clients.
After Respondent had registered the domain name <crew.com>, an employee of Complainant invited Respondent to join Complainant’s affiliate network. Pursuant to this affiliate program, Respondent was permitted to place a banner ad on Respondent’s website which was linked to Complainant’s website. Complainant promised Respondent a commission for sales made to customers using that link, but has apparently defaulted on its obligation. The only material on Respondent's website was the banner ad linked to Complainant's website.
E. Respondent contends that it has rights and legitimate interest in <crew.com> because of Respondent’s legitimate business of developing domain names for its own use and for sale to its clients.
F. Respondent contends that its registration and use of <crew.com> is in good faith because it had no actual knowledge of the CREW or J. CREW trademarks when it registered the domain name and because it was asked to join Complainant’s affiliates group.
The domain name presently at issue is <crew.com>. The "crew" portion of this domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark CREW. Therefore, a majority of the Panel finds that the requirement of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Respondent has given various justifications for its registration of <crew.com>, claiming that the domain name could be used for rowing or for construction teams. Shifting justifications for the selection of a domain name has been deemed to support a finding of bad faith. See Northern Light Technology, Inc. v. Northern Lights Club, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4732 (D. Mass. March 31, 2000)(finding the defendant’s various explanations to be mere pretext).
Respondent's registration prevents Complainant from using the <crew.com> or <j.crew.com> domain names corresponding to Complainant’s registered trademarks. We recognize that Complainant has registered the domain name <jcrew.com>. However, the ability of the Complainant to obtain alternate domain names should not make this provision inapplicable. Otherwise, the provision would always be inapplicable for it would nearly always be possible for the Complainant to obtain an alternative domain name or even to register the same name as its trademark in another gTLD or ccTLD.
A majority of the Panel has considered the decision in General Machine Products Company, Inc. v. Prime Domains, ICANN Case No. FA0001000092531, finding that registration of the domain name <craftwork.com> was not an abusive registration. In General Machine, Respondent’s alter ego Telepathy, Inc. (then known as Prime Domains) was in the business of selling generic and descriptive domain names. Respondent demonstrated that the phrase "craftwork" was commonly used as a descriptive term, and claimed that it registered the domain name without actual knowledge of the complainant's trademark because it had widespread use as a descriptive or generic term.
In reaching our opinion we are well aware that trademarks are not "rights in gross" and we do not think our opinion grants trademark owners rights beyond those recognized under applicable law, particularly in the United States where Congress has enacted the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), in part, to prevent trafficking in domain names that are the same as the trademarks of another. See, for example, Cello Holdings, L.L.C. v. Lawrence-Dahl Companies, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3936 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2000)(denying cross motions for summary judgment due to factual disputes); Northern Light Technology, Inc. v. Northern Lights Club, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4732 (D. Mass. March 31, 2000)(refusing to modify preliminary injunction against northernlights.com domain name based on ACPA). In Cello Holdings, the Court stated that a reasonable fact finder could conclude the defendant had a bad faith intent to profit from registration of a domain name that matched the plaintiff's CELLO mark because " he had no proprietary rights to the ‘Cello’ mark when he registered ‘cello.com,’ he had not previously used it, and he had engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that could be of interest to others and then trying to sell them." Thus, our conclusion--that the Respondent's registration of <crew.com> was an abusive registration--is consistent with the scope of protection afforded consumers and trademark owners under U.S. law.
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of this panel because their decision creates and applies a test for "abusive domain name registrations" which is not, in my opinion, part of the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy nor consonant with the stated and very limited purpose of this Policy. It does so in what I deem a mistaken view that it is up to the panel to enforce a non-existent policy of ICANN to prevent people from registering domain names for resale to others than the trademark owner. Whether such activity is proper or improper is not before us under the ICANN Policy and we do not, in any event, have the authority to so decide under the ICANN rules. Even if the decision were correct under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act , which I do not think is the case, we are not here authorized to apply that Act which differs significantly from the ICANN Policy and Rules. The majority decision goes far beyond the scope of the present ICANN Policy.
Unfortunately, the biased test the panel has used here automatically creates a situation, in every case, where there is only one element left to test, if the Complainant has a registered trademark and the domain registered by the Respondent is similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. Since every ICANN case, by definition, has to have these two other elements the decision obviates two thirds of the tests set up under the ICANN Policy. The majority view boils each case down to the single question, "Did the Respondent have a specific bona fide purpose or use in mind prior to acquisition of the domain name?" It rejects the idea that someone might not know exactly how he or she intends to use the domain name, and makes such uncertainty bad faith registration. That is not what the Policy we, as rule bound arbitrators, are directed to apply by the Rules.
The majority has identified the second element as "knowledge." This test, however, is always satisfied per se by what the majority identifies as automatic "constructive" notice of another's trademark rights. This is not a test, since this element would be satisfied for all registered trademarks by virtue of the simple fact of registration under the majority’s logic.
The parties to this dispute are not unfamiliar with each other. Long prior to this dispute, Respondent was solicited by Complainant to become part of Complainant’s affiliate network advertising its goods. Respondent agreed to permit Complainant to place banner ads on Respondent's Web site that were linked to Complainant’s web site. Complainant promised Respondent to pay a commission on sales made to customers using that link, but defaulted on its obligation to pay the commission. At one time Complainant’s attorney apparently unilaterally offered to purchase the <crew.com> domain name from Respondent. When it became clear that Respondent would not sell the domain name for a nominal sum, Complainant revoked Respondent's participation in the affiliate network and instituted this action. One might question whether this does not suggest that, in fact, this is a case of reverse domain name hijacking in which the Complainant has unilaterally decided this is a domain it would now like to have, after encouraging its use by another, and that it is now trying to use the ICANN rules to achieve what it cannot do by negotiations for the purchase of the name.
CREW2 (kr›) v. Chiefly British. A past tense of crow2.
As discussed below, the fact that CREW is a generic term permeates any analysis for trademark purposes. The majority's contention that any trademark registration by Complainant means that Respondent should automatically be imbued with constructive knowledge of the existence of the registration for purposes of the ICANN Policy, while incorrect in and of itself, is particularly inappropriate for a generic term. Additionally, as numerous courts have stated, a trademark owner is not by definition entitled to all domain names incorporating their trademark or even those identical to their trademark. See, Judge Pregerson’s excellent discussion of this issue in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 985 F.Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal. 1997), aff'd, 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999). This is especially so where the mark is generic and a common term. See, Cello Holdings, LLC v. Lawrence-Dahl Companies, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3936 (S.D. N.Y. 2000), denying cross motions for summary judgment because the Court felt the Plaintiff could not prove bad faith registration under the ACPA because of the generic nature of the word Cello, as a musical instrument. In Cello the defendant even acknowledged that it had sought to sell the domain name to others, as part of his business of selling domain names for generic use. This is exactly the situation here, and the same logic should apply.
Furthermore, the majority seems to assume that a trademark owner has some sort of God given right to use the trademark to the exclusion of others. As Justice Holmes observed, "A trademark does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or words…. A trademark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's goodwill against the sale of another's product as his." Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924). In short, the Complainant does not own all rights to the generic word CREW by virtue of its trademark registration.
Despite the majority's contention that Complainant’s registration of the CREW trademark somehow automatically imputes to the Respondent a violation of this element, there is absolutely no such evidence before this panel. While it is possible that the Respondent acquired the domain name for the purpose selling renting or otherwise transferring the domain name, because CREW is a common word, it cannot merely be assumed that Respondent's intent was to sell and transfer the domain name to the Complainant.
This element of the bad faith analysis also fails for two reasons. First, the name is generic and as such does not have an immediate relationship to the Complainant any more than it does to thousands of CREW teams around world or any of a number of its other meanings. (Again, see the Hasbro decision supra). Second, there is no evidence that the Respondent in any way attempted to create confusion as to the source of origin, sponsorship, or ownership of the domain name. Any confusion which may have occurred was at least, in part, due to the conduct of the Complainant whose own solicitation of the link on the web site of www.crew.com caused an implied relationship. As noted above, at the behest of Complaint’s own representative, the Respondent was encouraged by an offer of a commission, to, and did, place a banner ad on the CREW.com web site to direct traffic to the Complainant’s web site. In my judgment, it is highly illogical to find that by placing the banner ad, solicited and sanctioned by the Complainant, that directing traffic to the Complainant’s business should be considered an intentional attempt to create confusion as to the source of the domain. To the contrary, it seems an admission by Complainant that there is no confusion likely.
We are not legislators, but arbitrators. The majority, in an effort to stop a practice that it seems to take upon itself to believe is an unstated purpose of the ICANN Policy, has completely over-stepped its mandate as arbitrators. The decision creates a new and unauthorized test out of whole cloth, based on assumptions of fact by arbitrators without evidence on the subject, instead of using the appropriate and carefully crafted three step test for required evidence set out by the ICANN’ Policy and Rules. In my judgment, the majority's decision prohibits conduct which was not intended to be regulated by the ICANN policy. This creates a dangerous and unauthorized situation whereby the registration and use of common generic words as domains can be prevented by trademark owners wishing to own their generic trademarks in gross. I cannot and will not agree to any such decision, which is fundamentally wrong. I respectfully dissent from the majority decision of my fellow professional panelists.
1. Found in part in 15 U.S.C. §1125(d).
2. The majority takes this fact, rules it bad, and uses it to achieve its desired result. In contrast, see the discussion in Administrative Panel Decision for the <thyme.com> domain name, dispute case No.AF-0104.

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