Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/do-the-hustle-llc-v-tropic-web/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:03:39+00:00

Document:
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S. Service mark - U.S. Trademark - Phonetically identical - Confusingly similar -Generic domain name -Inaction as proof of bad faith registration and use.
Complainant registered the service mark "POLLY ESTHER'S" in connection with bars and restaurants and the trademark "POLLY ESTHERS" in connection with T-shirts and baseball caps. Complainant has used the mark in connection with 1970's theme bars and dance clubs in various cities in the United States and Canada. Complainant has registered the domain name <pollyesthers.com> that resolves to a web site, which promotes and markets Complainant's services and merchandise.
Respondent is a start up web development company. It has developed 6 web sites and plans to develop more. Respondent registered the domain names <pollyesters.com> and <pollyester.com>. Respondent has registered over fifty domain names, virtually all of which appear to be descriptive or generic in nature. None is obviously identical to a recognized trademark. Respondent has never offered to sell the domain names at issue or any registered domain names to any third party. To date, Respondent has not used the domain names at issue to develop web sites but, Respondent intends to use the domain names at issue as a search engine. Complainant sent Respondent an email, a certified letter, and left a telephone message requesting transfer of the domain names at issue. Respondent did not respond to any of these requests.
Respondent contends that the trademark is weak since a phonetically identical word, "polyester," is generic, and the words "Polly" and "Esther" are common first names. However, it was admitted that the domain names at issue are phonetically identical and confusingly similar to the service mark and trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Respondent's mere assertion of intention to develop a search engine utilizing the domain names at issue does not show, as required by Paragraph 4(c)(i), "demonstrable" evidence of such preparations to use the domain name, and that such preparations were undertaken "before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute.
Complainant failed to prove that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Inaction can constitute bad faith registration and use. Whether inaction constitutes bad faith registration and use can be determined only by analyzing the facts in a given case. In this case, the panel found (1) the trademark and service marks asserted by the complainant are weak and where they are homophones of a generic term, (2) the domain names registered by the respondent are generic or descriptive terms, rather than obvious trademarks or service marks, (3) Respondent is already making use of some of the domain names it registered, and where (4) Complainant did not allege and Respondent denied that Respondent had ever offered for sale the domain names at issue or any of the domain names it had registered. As a result, Complainant failed to prove that Respondent's inaction constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain names at issue.
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted August 26, 1999 and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
VereSign, Inc. v. VeneSign, C.A.,ICANN Case No. D2000-0303.
Gassen Diamonds B.V. v. Van Etten Bernardus Joacbus, ICANN Case No. AF-0149a. AF-0149b.
Beijing Pernot Ricard Winery Co. Ltd. v. Capital Enterprises Group, Inc., ICANN Case No. AF-0177.
Vanguard Medica Limited v. Theo McCormick, ICANN Case No. D2000-0067.
Penguin Books Limited v. The Katz Family and Anthony Katz, ICANN Case No. D2000-0204.
Educational Testing Service v. Netkorea Co., ICANN Case No. D2000-0087.
Europay International S.A. v. Eurocard.com, Inc., EuroCard.org, and Chad Folkening, ICANN Case No. D2000-0173.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, ICANN Case No. D2000-0150.
Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0270.
Ronson Plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., ICANN Case No. D2000-0011.
Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Jonathan D. Kimball, ICANN Case No. D2000-0119. American Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs, ICANN Case No. D2000-0131. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Ingersoll-Rand v. Frank Gully, d/b/a Advcomren, WIPO Case No. D2000-0021.
3.2 On June 21, 2000, a Request for Registrar Verification was transmitted to the registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") requesting it to: (1) confirm that the domain names at in issue are registered with NSI; (2) confirm that the person identified as the Respondent is the current registrant of the domain names; (3) provide the full contact details (i.e., postal address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es)) available in the registrars Whois database for the registrant of the disputed domain names, the technical contact, the administrative contact and the billing contact; (4) confirm that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") is in effect; (5) indicate the current status of the domain names.
3.5 No formal deficiencies having been recorded, on June 27, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification") was transmitted to the Respondent (with copies to the Complainant, NSI and ICANN), setting a deadline of July 16, 2000, by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint. The Commencement Notification was transmitted to the Respondent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses indicated in the Complaint and specified in NSIs confirmation. In addition, the complaint was sent by express courier to the postal address given. Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative Panel finds that the WIPO Center has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."

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