Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/general-motors-v-vette-owners/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:51:05+00:00

Document:
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution - Famous mark - Complainants symbol - Goodwill and recognition in mark - No authorization to use mark - Infringement of registered mark - No legitimate right to use domain name - Bad faith attempt - Respondent not known by mark - No fair use of domain name - Identical - No use or substantial preparation - Registration for purpose of selling or renting domain name.
Complainant owned a trademark for CORVETTE, which it intended to use and capitalize on the marks goodwill and recognition. Respondent, a fictitious name, registered the domain name in dispute, CORVETTE.COM. Complainant asks for transfer of the domain name.
The domain name in question is identical to Complainants mark. Respondent has never denied this claim.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question. Respondent has never used or made any sort of preparation to use the domain name to offer goods or services. The only use of the site was to offer the domain name for sale. Non-use of the domain name is not proof of rights or legitimate interests and offering the domain for sale at the site is not a legitimate non-commercial use or fair use of the domain name.
The domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The domain name was registered to sell or rent it to Complainant or a competitor who wanted to take advantage of Complainants well known mark. The only use of the domain name was to solicit offers to buy or rent the domain name. When a domain name comprised of a genuinely famous mark is registered and then simply held by the registrant with no use at all, that itself constitutes bad faith and cybersquatting.
Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO, June 6, 2000).
Electronic Commerce Media, Inc. v. Taos Mountain, Case No. FA0008000095344 (NAF, Oct. 11, 2000).
Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-003 (WIPO, Feb. 18, 2000).
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received General Motors complaint in hard copy on June 13, 2000, and via email on June 19, 2000. The Center verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). General Motors made the required payment to the Center. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is June 23, 2000.
On June 19, 2000, the Center transmitted via email to NSI a request for registrar verification in connection with this case. On June 25, 2000, NSI transmitted via email to the Center NSIs Verification Response, confirming that the registrant of the corvette.com domain name is "Vette Owners", with administrative and billing contact information c/o Turnbow at the California address noted above, and the domain name registration in issue in "Active" status.
On July 13, 2000, the Center received a letter purportedly from John Turnbow. The Turnbow letter comprised two paragraphs containing a brief response to the complaint. On July 14, 2000, the Center acknowledged via email to Turnbow that the Center had received a hard copy of "the one-page response that you prepared." The Center pointed out that it appeared a copy had not been sent to General Motors, listed seven deficiencies in Turnbows response, and requested that Turnbow remedy the deficiencies by July 31, 2000.
"Lets try one more time. I have included the before mentioned attachment [sic]." Please acknowledge.
Apparently accompanying the July 31, 2000 email from "Tony Cox" was a copy of Turnbows earlier letter of July 13, now dated July 28, 2000.
Upon receipt of the file in this matter, the Panel confirmed with the Center that the Center had not received "the required full-response" mentioned in Turnbows July 28 message to the Center. Accordingly, on September 13, 2000, the Center advised the parties via email that the Panel had requested "that the Respondent re-submit its Response attaching the referenced document [i.e. "the required full-response statement"]."
"The expected date of the Panels decision is extended to October 31, 2000."
These averments (and all the averments of fact in the Complaint) are accepted as true in light of the Respondents default. Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO, Feb. 29, 2000), § 5(d).
b. The Complaint Re Vettes and Turnbows Activities.
Turnbows letter referred to an enclosed dictionary definition of "corvette", viz. a warship of particular characteristics.
In Section A., under this heading, at page 9, General Motors asserts that the domain name is identical to General Motors trademark.
Despite Turbows assertion in his February 17, 1999 letter, Turbow has made no use in the five years he has had the website in any way related to the dictionary definition of "corvette". General Motors cites Panavision Intl, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9 Cir. 1998), for the proposition that courts ignore "token descriptive use especially where it is a ploy or an after-the-fact justification."
Turnbow has no legitimate right to use the domain name based on the fictitious "Vette Owners". The website is not "vetteowners.com", so Turnbow has no fair use argument. Turnbows cite has nothing to do with Corvette® cars. Turnbows use of "Vette Owners" is merely a transparent attempt to divert attention from his cybersquatting scheme.
In Section C.1., at pages 10 - 11, General Motors asserts that factors (i) and (iv) of Policy Paragraph 4.b., in light of the facts here, demonstrate Turnbow registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Turnbow was necessarily aware of the Corvette mark in light of its indisputable fame. He used the nickname for Corvette automobiles (Vette) has part of his fictitious registrants name. He expressly disclaimed any association with Corvette (the complaint says Corvette "mark", the website referred to "automobiles"). In short, the evidence -- especially the content of his website advertisement -- shows a bad faith attempt to "reap a windfall off of the fame and recognition accruing to GMs intellectual property." In addition, General Motor asserts that it is logical to conclude that, in seeking the highest bidder, Turnbow chose "to convert a famous and popular mark into a domain name to attract the most potential bidders. . . ." General Motors characterizes Turnbows defense (in his February 27, 1999) letter as "laughable" and "head in the sand."
"The complainants assertion that I attempted to sell the name is completely untrue. I am still developing plans for operating the site in the future. I will continue to proceed in all matters related to "Corvette.com" in good faith. It is my sincere hope that WIPO will see through the erroneous accusation of the complainant, and allow me to continue my dream for Corvette enthusiasts. I have been harassed extensively since legally obtaining the rights to the aforementioned domain name, and hope that General Motors will not be allowed to extort this name from me. If further clarification is needed, please advise and I will respond immediately."
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if proved by respondent, shall demonstrate respondents rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
On this record, no challenge has been leveled with respect to; (1) the validity of the Corvette trademark, (2); General Motors rights in the mark with respect to the various goods which are the subjects of the 19 U.S. federal registrations, or (3); the global fame and goodwill associated with the mark.
These purely conjectural statements are not supported in any way by any evidence in this record. Indeed, if Vette or Turnbow had any evidence supporting Turnbows representations to the Center, it is not too much to have expected such evidence to have accompanied his purported response to the complaint. Indeed, Paragraph 4.c. of the Policy and Rule 5.(b)(i) of the Rules place the burden on respondents to come forward with such evidence. Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO, June 6, 2000), at Discussion, § 2.
In addition, nothing undercuts General Motors assertion that neither Vette nor Turnbow has been commonly known by the domain name.
Registration and use of the domain names in issue in bad faith are matters of the appropriate inferences to draw from circumstantial evidence, including Respodents default. Rule 14(b) of the Rules; Talk City, Case No. D2000-0009, at § 5(d). Both registration in bad faith and use in bad faith must be proved by General Motors.
The credible evidence compels the conclusion that Vette and Turnbow registered or acquired the domain name "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting ... the domain name registration to the complainant ... or to a competitor of that complainant, for a valuable consideration in excess of [Vettes and Turnbows] out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." 5 Turnbows naked denial of any intent to sell, in his letter of July 13, 2000 to the Center, does not undercut the inference necessitated by the undisputed facts and by Turnbows own arguments.
The domain name has either never been used or has been used as an address for a website which undeniably solicited offers to buy or lease the domain name. The advertisement expressly acknowledges the existence of Corvette automobiles, and thus, manifests an awareness of the CORVETTE mark. As we have already noted in Section 5.b., supra, Turnbows naked disavowal in his July 13, 2000 letter of knowledge or permission with respect to the advertisement found at the domain name in issue does not ring true in light of his letter of February 17, 1999, attributing the advertisement to his "IP host". It is inconceivable that Turnbow was unaware of this use of the domain name before General Motors first wrote to Turnbow. See Electronic Commerce Media, Inc. v. Taos Mountain, Case No. FA0008000095344 (NAF, Oct. 11, 2000) (offer to sell domain name on website constitutes bad faith).
The Panel concludes that Vettes and Turnbows registration and use of the corvette.com domain name have both been in bad faith.
1. NSIs records show that Vette, not "Mr. Turnbow", is the "current registered owners" of corvette.com.
2. Because the transmittal was sent electronically, and because the subject letters had a code that automatically generated the date, the two attachments were dated "October 17, 2000", the date of the transmittal. The attachments are (1) copy of Turnbows undated letter received by the Center on July 13 and again under date of July 28, and (2) copy of Turnbows July 28 letter directed to procedural issues.
4. Among the material infirmities in the July 13, 2000 letter is Turbows failure to certify the completeness and accuracy of his statements. Rule 5(b)(viii) of the Rules; see Talk City, Case No. D2000-0009, at § 5(a)(i) (response cannot be accepted in the absence of the required certification).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 5
 v. 
 § 5