Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - Common law trademark rights - Identical - Legitimate interests - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - Proper forum for adjudication - Reverse domain name hijacking - Failure to serve Complaint on Respondent.

Complainant has valid trademark rights in the mark ROCK CITY which has been used by Complainant since 1987 in connection with a newspaper covering rock ‘n roll bands.  Respondent acquired the domain name ROCKCITY.com in good faith and was offering services under the domain name prior to the initiation of this dispute.

HELD, Name not transferred to Complainant.

The domain name in question, ROCKCITY.com, is identical to Complainant’s mark ROCK CITY.

Respondent has shown that it has a legitimate interest in this domain name.  To neutralize that assertion, Complainant must show that the domain name is causing confusion and constitutes infringement.  Complainant ought to pursue those claims in court, which is a more appropriate forum because it provides for discovery, live testimony, and credibility determinations. 

Complainant has not proven that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.  If Complainant believes that there was bad faith, then it should pursue its claims in a more appropriate forum.

Complainant’s conduct does not constitute reverse domain name hijacking because Complainant may have a bona fide claim against Respondent.

Failure to properly serve the Complaint on Respondent did not prejudice Respondent in any way, thus Respondent’s argument that the Complaint should be dismissed is rejected.
 

Policies Referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999

Registration Agreements referred to

--

Cases referred to

--

Panel Decisions referred to

Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000).
Inter-Continental Hotels Corp. v. Khaled Ali Soussi, Case No. D2000-0252 (WIPO July 5, 2000).

Atkinson, Bernstein and Fink, Panelists: -

PARTIES
The Complainant is Ruben L. Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Irish Realty Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK, USA ("Respondent").
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) 
The domain name at issue is "ROCKCITY.COM", registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum"). The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint 05/25/2000. 
On 06/13/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name(s) "ROCKCITY.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 UDRP.
On 06/02/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 06/22/2000 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. The respondent filed a timely response on 6/21/00. 
The Forum proceeded to appoint a panel of three arbitrators (pursuant to Respondent’s request), and set a decision date of July 28, 2000. Because of a conflict that later became clear, two of the panelists had to be replaced. On July 14, 2000, the Forum appointed a Panel consisting of Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Esquire, David H. Bernstein, Esquire and Judge Karl V. Fink (Retired). Because of the delays in appointing the new panel and scheduling conflicts, the date for decision was reset for August 8, 2000. 
Complainant has submitted and the Panel has considered Complainant’s reply to the Respondent’s response. 

RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.  Complainant
1. In 1987, Complainant filed a fictitious business name for Rock City News and on March 18, 1988 filed a fictitious business name for Rock City and began using that name instead of Rock City News. In 1995 Complainant renewed the fictitious names for Rock City and Rock City News and throughout that time used Rock City continuously in business. 
2. On December 15, 1996 Complainant established an internet web site www.pacificnet.net /~Rock City. On February 5, 1997 Complainant attempted to change that name to rockcity.com, which he was not allowed to do since that name was taken. He used the second choice, rockcitynews.com. 
3. Complainant attempted to purchase the domain name rockcity.com from the then registrant and was told it would cost $25,000. 
4. Complainant continued to use its domain name rockcitynews.com and would periodically check to see if rockcity.com was being used. In January 2000 Complainant determined that rockcity.com was being used. 
5. Complainant has used the mark Rock City and has applied for a US Trademark registration for that mark. 
6. Respondent has rented high visibility street front property less than one mile from the office of Complainant which has had an office in that area since 1983. 
7. Respondent is using the domain name to attract internet users to their web site which is an exact copy of Complainant’s famous trademark, Rock City. 
8. Complainant contends that he has met all the requirements for the transfer of the domain name. 
B.  Respondent 
1. Respondent contends that this dispute is not an applicable dispute as defined by the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy and rules. Complainant can not meet the three required factors under paragraph 4a of the policy. 
2. In February 1999 the founders of Respondent selected the name rockcity.com to serve as the company’s primary name and service mark. They discovered that it was already registered by an individual and negotiated the purchase of that name which was assigned to Respondent in February 1999. 
3. Shortly thereafter Respondent formed Rockcity.com, LLC and filed an application for registration of the mark rockcity.com. 
4. Respondent acquired the domain name rockcity.com in March 1999 and has been using the name and mark in connection with the domain name since that time and has never held the name without using it. 
5. Respondent used the domain name and trade name and service mark in connection with a bona fide offering of original media broadcasting for nearly 8 months before receiving notification of this dispute. Its preparations for use of the domain name began over a year before receiving any contact by Complainant. 
6. Respondent’s domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. 
7. The Complaint should be dismissed for failure by Complainant to properly serve Respondent as required by the Rules. 
8. Respondent contends that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes abuse of the administrative proceeding and therefore, Complainant should be sanctioned by the panel. 

FINDINGS
1. Complainant has valid common law trademark rights in the mark ROCK CITY. Complainant has used the ROCK CITY mark since 1987 in connection with a newspaper covering rock ‘n roll bands, particularly in the Los Angeles area. 
2. In 1997, Complainant attempted to register the domain name rockcity.com, but learned that it was registered by a third party. Complainant thus registered the domain name rockcitynews.com, and launched an Internet version of its newspaper. 
3. Any offer to sell the rockcity.com domain name to Complainant by the name’s previous registrant is irrelevant because Respondent appears to have purchased the domain name in good faith without knowledge of Complainant’s allegations of infringement and/or cybersquatting. 
4. Complainant alleges that it has received telephone calls from consumers complaining about the content on the rockcity.com website and commenting on the rockcity.com offices on Sunset Strip (which actually belong to Respondent), and that these calls demonstrate the existence of actual confusion. These allegations, if true, may support a finding that Respondent’s use of the mark and domain name ROCKCITY.COM constitutes trademark infringement, but there is not sufficient evidence in the record for the Panel to make a definitive conclusion in this regard. 
5. Respondent asserts that, although the domain name technically is owned by Irish Realty Corp., the true owner in interest is rockcity.com, LLC, which operates the rockcity.com website. Respondent notes that it holds the rockcity.com domain name for the benefit of rockcity.com. 

DISCUSSION 
Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to demonstrate that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in question rockcity.com is identical to Complainant’s mark ROCK CITY. 
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name rockcity.com. Once Complainant makes out a prima facie showing in that regard, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000). 
Respondent has shown that it has a legitimate interest in this domain name. It asserts that it selected the name in good faith for its website, and was offering services under the domain name prior to the initiation of this dispute. See Policy ? 4(c)(i). To neutralize that assertion, Complainant would have to show that the domain name is causing confusion and constitutes infringement, in which case it would undermine any assertion that Respondent was engaged in a bona fide offering of services. Id. Because of the nature of these truncated proceedings, this is not the proper forum for adjudication of any such allegations. Thus, if Complainant wishes to prove that Respondent lacks a legitimate interest in this domain name (and that its registration and use is in bad faith), it should pursue those claims in court, which is a more appropriate forum because it provides for discovery, live testimony, and credibility determinations. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000); Inter-Continental Hotels Corp. v. Khaled Ali Soussi, Case No. D2000-0252 (WIPO July 5, 2000).
Bad Faith
For the same reasons as discussed in the proceeding section on the legitimacy of Respondent’s interest, Complainant has not proven that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Again, if Complainant believes that there was bad faith (for example, that its ROCK CITY mark and rockcitynews.com domain name were disclosed in a search report commissioned by Respondent, that Respondent was concerned that its adoption of rockcity.com would cause confusion with those marks, but that Respondent willfully adopted the ROCK CITY mark notwithstanding such concerns), then it should pursue its claims in a forum (e.g., court) that is more appropriate for such disputes. Id.
Bad Faith by Complainant
Respondent has requested that the Panel chastise Complainant for filing the complaint in bad faith, and find that Complainant’s filing constitutes an abuse of the administrative process. The Panel rejects these arguments. Complainant may have a bona fide claim against Respondent, particularly if Complainant can prevail in its allegation that Respondent’s website, rockcity.com, infringes Complainant’s common law rights in the mark ROCK CITY. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s conduct does not constitute reverse domain name hijacking.
The Panel similarly rejects Respondent’s argument that the Complaint should be dismissed because Complainant failed to serve the Complaint on the Respondent, as required by the Rules. Complainant is acting on a largely pro se basis in this proceeding, and its failure to properly serve respondent did not prejudice Respondent in any way, particularly given that Respondent has received actual notice of this proceeding through the Forum, and has submitted a response on the merits. That procedural defect under the facts of this case is not considered to be significant by the Panel.

DECISION
Complainant’s request for transfer of the domain name is denied. 
  Panel: Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Esquire
David H. Bernstein, Esquire
Judge Karl V. Fink (Retired) 

For the Panel 
Judge Karl V. Fink, (Ret.), Chair
Dated: August 8, 2000