Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/oceanwalk-properties-v-virtual-reality-mall/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:06:06+00:00

Document:
Oceanwalk Properties, Ltd. v. Virtual Reality Mall, Inc.
Domain name - Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Trademark - Service mark - U.S. Patent and Trademark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Rights or legitimate interest - Bad faith use - Bad faith registration - Generic and geographic - Not entitled to trademark protection - valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs - Disrupting business of competitor - Intent to deceive.
Complainant, a real estate developer, registered the marks OCEAN WALK VILLAGE and OCEAN WALK RESORT in connection to a widely publicized redevelopment project. Respondent registered the domain name OCEANWALK.COM and uses it for the development and marketing of various retail products. Although Complainant has offered to buy the domain name from Respondent, there has not been any attempt on Respondents part to sell the said domain name.
It is clear that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the service mark registered by Complainant. Complainant has established entitlement to protection of the name Ocean Walk. Wide publicity of the project in the local newspaper has given secondary meaning to the name, thus taking away its generic and geographically descriptive character.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. Respondent admitted the existence of the name Ocean Walk prior to registering a domain name similar to Complainants mark. His vague and speculative claims that the domain name use is dissimilar to that of Complainant are irrelevant. It is clear that by adopting a similar name, his intention was to deceive the public.
Evidence also shows bad faith use and registration of the said domain name. Respondent has sought to use the same name in order to attract Internet users to his website and thus promote his own commercial gain. In so doing, he has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of Respondents website.
Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18, I, Ltd., 155 F.3d 526, 48 U.S.P.Q. 1065(4th Cir. 1998).
AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d 341, 354(19th Cir. 1979).
E & J Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1293(9th Cir. 1992).
Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc. 184 F.3d 1107, 1111(9th Cir. 1999).
Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6F.3d 1385(9th Cir. 1993).
On 06/26/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "OCEANWALK.COM" is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 5.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Policy).
On June 27, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/17/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.
On July 19, 2000, pursuant to Complainants request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.
1. The domain name "Oceanwalk.com" registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to the trademarks "Ocean Walk Resort" and "Ocean Walk Village" owned and registered by the Complainant, Ocean Walk Properties, LTD.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue. Respondent was not using the domain name prior to the filing of the Complaint herein, and its precipitous use thereafter has no relationship whatever to the domain name.
3. The domain name in issue was registered and is being used in bad faith.
1. The domain name at issue is generic and geographic, and is not entitled to trademark protection. Many enterprises in Florida and elsewhere use the name "Ocean Walk" or a derivation thereof.
2. The domain name was registered with the thought of productive use, and will be utilized in promoting charitable events throughout the United States as well as promotional products. It has nothing whatever to do with real estate. Thus, Respondent has the right and a legitimate interest in the domain name in issue.
3. The domain name at issue was not registered and/or being used in bad faith.
1. The Complainant, Ocean Walk Properties, Ltd., registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office the marks "Ocean Walk Village" and "Ocean Walk Resort" on March 20, 1998, and April 12, 1999, respectively. The marks also have been registered with the State of Florida.
2. The goods and services represented by the marks are real estate development and hotel services.
3. Complainant is the leader of a $200 million redevelopment project of the blighted ocean front of the City of Daytona Beach, Florida. The proposed project included a parking garage, hotels, restaurants and the expansion of the Daytona Beach Convention Center.
4. The proposed project is called "Ocean Walk" and it has received wide publicity by name through a newspaper, The Orlando Sentinel, Volusia Edition.
5. Respondent, Virtual Reality Mall, Inc., is a Florida corporation, which operates an internet company established for the development and marketing of various products for retail sale.
6. Respondent planned to use and is now using the website with the domain name in issue for the marketing of envelopes and postal directives, and plans are in process for the development of shirts and other apparel under the domain name in issue. Respondent also plans to organize charitable events throughout the country to promote its products using the "Ocean Walk" name.
7. Respondent does not dispute that it was familiar with the Ocean Walk development plans of the Complainant before registering the domain name at issue.
8. Respondent has not attempted to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant, although Complainant has offered to buy the domain name from Respondent.
9. There are numerous websites and Florida Secretary of State filings which use the name "Ocean Walk," many of which, unlike Respondent, deal with real estate.
On this issue also, Complainant must prevail. Respondent admittedly registered the domain name at issue knowing that it was substantially similar to Complainants marks. Respondent claims that the domain name at issue will be used for a purpose dissimilar to Complainants real estate project. It asserts that the domain name will be used for nationwide charitable events and to promote the sale of its products and will have no relevance to real estate. These claims, however, particularly the potential charitable events, are vague and speculative, and have no relationship to Respondents present activities.
Finally, on this issue, Complainant also must prevail.
(iv) by using the domain name, a Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondents website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondents website or location of a product or service on the Complainants website or location.
Paragraph (iv) of the Policy is directly on point and is particularly apt when the words "source," "sponsorship," "affiliation," or "endorsement" are considered. People in the Daytona Beach area will identify Respondent with Complainants cause. Respondents use of the domain name, accordingly, is not a "fair use" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(B)(ii).
Here, again, a presumption of deception also militates against Respondent.
It is concluded, accordingly, that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It has not overcome the presumption.
Based on the above findings, conclusions and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided that the domain name "OCEANWALK.COM" registered by Respondent Virtual Reality Mall, Inc. be transferred to Complainant Oceanwalk Properties, Ltd.

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