v.
CPIC Net
[Indexed as PHH Vehicle Management Services v. CPIC Net]
[INDEXED AS: PHHARVAL.COM ET AL.]
National Arbitration Forum
Domain Name Dispute Administrative Decision
File No.: No.: FA0006000094958
Commenced: 5 June 2000
Judgement: 3 July 2000
Arbitrator: James A. Carmody
Domain name Domain name dispute resolution Common law trademarks No response from Respondent Infer Complainants claims true - Confusingly similar Complainants rights in marks Knowledge that domain names were misleading Intentional diversion of business No rights or legitimate interests Respondent not commonly known by domains Inclusion of Complainants marks in domains for profit No intent to develop site Bad faith registration Domains registered same day as partnership announced No intent for legitimate business use Offer to sell a domain site for amount greater than out-of-pocket costs.
Complainant has common law trademarks in PHH that it uses in conjunction with its business. Complainant entered into partnership with another company to use the names ARVAL/PHH and PHH/ARVAL. This information was disseminated in a worldwide press release. Respondent registered the domain names PHHARVAL.COM and ARVALPHH.COM the day of the news release. When contacted by Complainant, Respondent offered to transfer the domain name for $10 000. Respondent did not file a response, so there is an inference that Complainants claims are true.
Held, Names Transferred
The domain names registered were confusingly similar to Complainants
rights in the marks PHH, PHHARVAL, and ARVALPHH. Failure to respond
to Complainants allegations indicates that Respondent new that the disputed
domain names were misleading and registered for the purpose of diverting
business away from Complainant.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
Respondent is not commonly known by the marks in the domains, and is using
these marks for profit. Moreover, Respondent indicated that it has no intention
to develop a website associated with the domain names.
The domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The primary purpose of registering the domain names was to transfer it
to Complainant for valuable consideration. Respondent registered the domain
name the very same day that the agreement was announced by Complainant.
Furthermore, Respondent has no intention of using the domain names for
a legitimate purpose.
Policies referred to
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999
Cases referred to
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000)
World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000)
Panel Decision referred to
--
Carmody, Panelist: -
PARTIES
The Complainant is PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, Hunt Valley,
MD, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is CPIC Net, Closter, NJ, USA ("Respondent").
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s)
The domain names at issue are PHHARVAL.COM and ARVALPHH.COM, registered
with Easyspace Ltd.
PANELIST(s)
Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
("The Forum") electronically on June 5, 2000; The Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on June 5, 2000.
On June 13, 2000, Easyspace confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the
domain names PHHARVAL.COM and ARVALPHH.COM are registered with Easyspace
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.
On June 5, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June
26, 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 Respondents registration as technical, administrative
and billing contacts by email.
On June 26, 2000, having received no Response from Respondent, using
the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement
Notification, The Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On June 27, 2000, pursuant to Complainants request to have the dispute
decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Hon. James A. Carmody
as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative
Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility
under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available
means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the
Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance
with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, The Forums Supplemental Rules and
any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without
the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered two domain
names that are confusingly similar to its common law trademarks, in continuous
use since the 1940s, by the Complainant. Further, the Complainant
contends that the Respondent is a Cybersquatter and thus has no rights
or legitimate interests to the domain names and has registered and is using
the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent submitted no response in this matter and all reasonable
factual inferences will be drawn from the Complaint.
FINDINGS
Since 1946 the Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used
the PHH mark in connection with automotive fleet management services and
other related goods. The Complainant has invested substantial sums
of money in developing and marketing its products and services in connection
with its mark. The Complainant uses <phh.com> to market its services
on the Internet.
On April 18, 2000, the Complainant announced that it had formed a partnership
with BNP Paribas Group under the names Arval/PHH and PHH/Arval. The
Complainant made this announcement via press releases sent around the world.
On the same day, April 18, 2000, the Respondent registered the
domain names PHHARVAL.COM and ARVALPHH.COM. On May 15, 2000,
the Complainant contacted the Respondents administrative contact regarding
transfer of the said names. In that conversation, the Respondent
admitted to registering the domain names after hearing of the Arval/PHH
partnership and with no intention of using the domain names for a legitimate
business purpose. The Respondent refused to transfer the domain names
and requested that the Complainant pay $10,000 for both domain names.
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
to support a claim 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;
(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.
The Complainant has offered exhibits in support of its claims, whereas
the Respondent has submitted no response in the matter. The Respondents
failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference
that the Complainants allegations are true. Further, the Respondents
failure to respond leads one to believe that the Respondent knows that
its use of the domain names is misleading and intentionally diverting business
from the Complainant. See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System,
FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000). Applying the Policy to the
issue in this case furthers these inferences.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the marks PHH, PHHARVAL, and ARVALPHH.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not assert any rights or legitimate interests to
the domain name in question.
The name does not reflect a name by which the Respondent is commonly
known. Policy 4(c)(ii). Rather, the Respondent is using
a portion of the Complainants marks for its profit. The Respondent
also admitted no intention to develop the site. Thus, the Respondent
is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or service. Policy 4(c)(i).
Bad Faith
The Respondent does not deny that its actions were taken in bad faith.
The Respondent registered the said domain name for the primary purpose
of selling or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant
for valuable consideration. Policy 4(b)(i). It is not
a coincidence that the Respondent registered the domain names in question
on the same day that the Complainant announced its partnership with Arval.
Further evidence of the Respondents bad faith is the Respondents admission
that he had no intention of using the site for a legitimate business purpose.
Instead, one month after registering the sites, the Respondent offered
to sell one of the sites to the Complainant for a price in excess of any
out-of-pocket costs directly related to registering and maintaining the
domain name. See World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO
Jan. 14, 2000). This is evidence of bad faith. Policy
4(b)(i).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy
Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be
granted.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the
domain names, PHHARVAL.COM and ARVALPHH.COM be transferred from the
Respondent to the Complainant.
|