Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/cabletron-v-dsl/
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 11:44:11
Document Index: 618265428

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6']

Cabletron v. DSL – DNattorney
[Indexed as: Cabletron v. DSL]
[Indexed as: CABLETRONSYSTEMS.com]
Case No: WIPO D2000-0571
Judgement: 18 August, 2000
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - Trademark - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - Prior knowledge - Constructive knowledge - Right or legitimate interest - Wrong information.
Complainant is the registered owner of United States and international trademarks for the names CABLETRON and CABLETRON SYSTEMS. Complainant is a provider of world-class networking solutions. Respondent is DSL Enterprises and is the registered owner of the Domain Name cabletronsystems.com.
The Panel finds that the addition of a space between the two elements that comprise Complainants mark does not prevent the finding that the Domain Name cabletronstystems.com and trademark CABBLETRON SYSTEMS are identical or at least confusingly similar.
Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant or otherwise authorised to use Complainants mark. Respondent does not offer any goods or services using cabletronsystems.com , use the name as his business name or allege any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Respondent had actual prior knowledge of the existence Complainants mark and, also had constructive knowledge of Complainants mark because of its registration. Respondent registered other well-known marks. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registrations which prevents owners of the trademarks or service marks from reflecting their marks in a corresponding domain name. Respondent provided a false telephone number, e-mail address and false identities to Complainant and to the Registrar. Such actions have been deemed to be acts of bad faith.
ICANN Supplemental Rules for Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
Christian Dior Couture SA v. Liage International Inc., ICANN D2000-0098 (WIPO).
Reef Industries, Inc. v. Moose Lake Products Company, Inc., ICANN D2000-0041 (WIPO).
Zwack Unicum Rt. v. Erica J. Duna, ICANN D2000-0037 (WIPO).
The Hamlet Group, Inc. v. James Lansford, ICANN D2000-0073 (WIPO).
Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, ICANN D2000-0010 (WIPO).
Barneys Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, ICANN D2000-0059 (WIPO).
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows, ICANN D2000-0003 (WIPO).
3636275 Canada, dba eResolution v. eResolution.com, ICANN D2000-0110 (WIPO).
Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, ICANN D2000-0138 (WIPO).
The registrations for Complainants trademarks in the United States are as follows:
Mark: International Class (goods/services): Registration No: Registration Date:
CABLETRON SYSTEMS 9 (computer software) 1793450 21-Sep-1993
CABLETRON SYSTEMS 9 (computer networking products) 1944009 26-Dec-1995
CABLETRON 37 and 42 (computer services) 1972666 35191
Complainant is a well-known provider of world-class networking solutions. With scalable products designed for Global 1000 enterprise networks, service providers, and small businesses, Complainant is the e-business communications specialist in the Internet economy. The Complainants products and services are used by leading Internet Service Providers, leading e-business retailers, government organizations, and thousands of enterprise, healthcare, manufacturing, and financial customers around the world. The Complainant also supports a global network of Synergy Plus authorized distributors and resellers who deliver award-winning technology and services in their regional markets. Complainant is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. As of February 29, 2000, net income for the fiscal year 2000 on a pro forma basis was about $69.9 million, net sales were over $1.4 billion, and assets totaled over $3.1 billion.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark or other rights in the mark CABLETRON SYSTEMS. Complainants counsel asked the Respondent to cease and desist from use of the "cabletronsystems.com" domain name. An individual who identified himself as Ron Savoy responded, stating "I made cabletron [sic] aware I had the site as a courtesy, and even today I got a piece of mail for them." On April 8, 2000, Mr. Savoy said that he had previously indicated he would give up the domain name "if it would not cost me any money!" On April 10, 2000, the Complainants counsel stated that the Complainant was willing to provide the necessary forms to transfer ownership of the domain name and to reimburse Mr. Savoy for his out-of-pocket registration costs up to $250. Mr. Savoy responded that day, stating: "This is fine as long as you cover all costs. Make check out to DLS enterprises and NOT Ron Savoy. You have all the necessary information from my who is information to send me mail. Just make sure I dont [sic] have to sign for and [sic] mail from the post office!" The Complainants counsel responded that it would send the reimbursement check for registration costs once it received a signed transfer form from Mr. Savoy. Mr. Savoy, responding as "Christopher Columbus," said, "A check will need to be issued before I sign anything."
B. Respondent does not contest Complainants assertions of trademark rights or that the Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the CABLETRON SYSTEMS mark.
The only difference between the CABLETRON SYSTEMS mark and the Domain Name "cabletronsystems.com" is the addition of a space between the two elements that comprise the Complainants mark. The addition of a space is inconsequential and does not prevent a finding that the names are identical or at least confusingly similar. See Christian Dior Couture SA v. Liage International Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0098, § 7.B.1 at 4; Reef Industries, Inc. v. Moose Lake Products Company, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0041, § 6.B at 4; Zwack Unicum Rt. v. Erica J. Duna, WIPO Case No. D2000-0037, § 6.3 at 4; The Hamlet Group, Inc. v. James Lansford, WIPO Case No. D2000-0073, § 6 at 4; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, WIPO Case No. D2000-0010, § 6 at 5.
Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor is he otherwise authorized to use the Complainants mark. Respondent has offered no evidence that he has offered any good or services using the Domain Name. Respondent offers no evidence that he uses "cabletronsystems" as his business name; and there is no evidence that he did so prior to his registration and use of "cabletronsystems.com". Respondent alleges no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
(ii) Respondent had actual knowledge prior to registration of the Domain Name of the existence of Complainants mark because he initiated contact with Complainant. In addition, Respondent had constructive knowledge of the Complainants mark because of its registration. See, Barneys Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, WIPO Case No. D2000-0059. Respondent has also registered other well-known marks as in the case of "Putnam-investments.com". Therefore, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registrations which prevents the owners of the trademarks or service marks from reflecting their marks in a corresponding domain name.
Respondent provided a false telephone number , false e-mail address and false identities to Complainant and to the Registrar. Such actions have been deemed to be acts of bad faith. See 3636275 Canada, dba eResolution v. eResolution.com, ICANN Case No. D2000-0110, § 6 at 7 (finding bad faith where Respondent was an unidentified business entity and person responding to Complainants cease and desist request did not provide street address and gave means of communication and contact that were "unusual and even questionable for someone conducting a legitimate business"); Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, WIPO Case No. D2000-0138, § 6.C at 3 (registration of false name indicates bad faith).
Name Transferred.