Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0028.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:43:09+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Tuttle Crossing Associates II LLC, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America, represented by Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, United States of America.
The Respondent is Troy Joseph, Boynton Beach, Florida, United States of America, of United States of America.
The disputed domain name <themallattuttlecrossing.com> is registered with Abacus America Inc. dba Names4Ever.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January�10,�2006. On January�11,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Abacus America Inc. dba Names4Ever a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On January�13,�2006, Abacus America Inc. dba Names4Ever transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January�16,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February�5, 2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February�6,�2006.
The Center appointed Andrew Mansfield as the sole panelist in this matter on February�13, 2006. 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 possesses trademark rights to THE MALL AT TUTTLE CROSSING and such rights are recognized in United States federal service registration 2,246,999, registered May�18,�1999. Complainant has filed two additional service mark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, both dated April�18,�2005. One is a standard character mark for THE MALL AT TUTTLE CROSSING and the other is for a design plus words, letters, and/or numbers. These applications are pending.
Complainant alleges that it and its predecessors in interest have operated a shopping mall known as “The Mall at Tuttle Crossing” (hereinafter “the Mall”) in Dublin, Ohio, since 1997. The Mall is located in the Columbus, Ohio market area. It consists of over one million square feet of retail space in which are located 140 stores and restaurants.
Complainant alleges that it provides information about the Mall on the Internet at <www.shoptuttlecrossing.com>. Further, Complainant alleges that it has invested a substantial amount of time and resources in the promotion of its trademark rights in THE MALL AT TUTTLE CROSSING.
Upon reasonable inquiry, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <themallatshuttlecrossing.com> on December�17,�2002. The parties exchanged letters concerning their respective positions in this dispute through counsel during March of 2005.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark. Both the disputed domain name and the trademark consist of the words “The Mall at Tuttle Crossing.” Complainant alleges that the addition of the generic top-level domain name “.com” is without legal significance.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not, allegedly, a licensee of Complainant. Complainant also alleges that Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has made no demonstrable preparations for the bona fide offering of goods or services under such a name.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. Respondent has not, apparently, used the domain name. Complainant states that Respondent had both constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights, through its service mark registration, and actual notice of the trademark, as evidenced by Respondent’s counsel’s admission in correspondence. Complainant alleges that Respondent either intended to sell the domain name to Complainant or to commercially benefit from consumer confusion.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
Complainant has a registered trademark concerning the leasing of mall space and real estate services in THE MALL AT TUTTLE CROSSING. U.S. Reg. No. 2,246,499. Complainant has much broader common law trademark rights to THE MALL AT TUTTLE CROSSING. In the United States, trademark rights arise from the actual use of a trademark or service mark. If a service is provided under a brand, common law trademark rights are automatically created. This is especially true once consumers view the brand name as an indicator of the service’s source. Common law trademark rights can be established by demonstrating continuous use of a mark over an extended period of time. American Home Products v. Ben Malgioglio, WIPO Case No. D2000-1602 .
Both registered and unregistered marks are entitled to protection under the Policy Para. 4(a)(1). See Business Architecture Group, Inc. v. Reflex Publishing, Case No. FA 0104000097051 (NAF June�5,�2001) (“A complaining party can establish that it has rights in a trademark or service mark by establishing that an entity such as the PTO has approved its mark, or, alternatively, that it has established rights as a common law mark”). Numerous decisions of prior panels make clear the fact that common law trademarks are protected. See, e.g., Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, WIPO Case No. D2000-0210; Jeanette Winterson.v. Mark Hogarth, WIPO Case No. D2000-0235; Giampaolo Matteucci v. Webmaster, AWG, WIPO Case No. D2001-1135.
The Panel finds that the disputed name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark and common law trademark rights in the service mark THE MALL AT TUTTLE CROSSING.
Respondent filed no response in this matter. Complainant asserts that it is not aware of any rights or legitimate interests that Respondent may have in “The Mall at Tuttle Crossing.” The Panel is also unable to discern any rights or legitimate interests that Respondent has in “The Mall at Tuttle Crossing”.
Based on the case file, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
There is a three-year gap between the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name and this dispute. During that time, Respondent has made no use of the domain name. Prior panels have found bad faith present when respondents fail to use domain names if such failure occurs in association with: (1) notice of complainant’s trademark rights; (2) an offer by respondent to sell or lease the domain name; and, (3) a lack of any identified legal use to which respondent may put the disputed domain name. Telstra Corporation, Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (February�18,�2000); Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. v. Career Professionals, Inc., Case No. FA0106000097354 (NAF July�12,�2001).
In the March�14,�2005 letter, Respondent’s counsel indicated Respondent’s willingness to develop “a mutually beneficial” solution. He offered to serve as an intermediary in negotiating such a solution. The Panel finds that Respondent sought through counsel, though in coded language, to sell or lease the domain name to Complainant. See Petland, Inc. v. COM.sortium, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2001-0430 (holding that respondent’s statement that it “would consider meeting with [complainant] to discuss a mutually beneficial resolution” was “fairly standard code for an offer to sell a domain name” given that “[f]ew domain name registrants in violation of the Policy nowadays are willing explicitly to commit their intentions to paper as they were several years ago;” and finding bad faith in light of the above).
Respondent has officially provided no explanation as to what use it could put the disputed domain name that would not violate Complainant’s trademark rights. In the March�14,�2005 letter, Respondent’s counsel indicates only that Respondent intended to advertise and promote goods and services on behalf of online merchants and/or provide an e-commerce site at the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that any such use of the disputed domain name as described by Respondent’s counsel would violate Complainant’s registered and common law trademark rights.
The Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name – if not simply with a view to otherwise profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s trademarks. Such action constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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