INDIAN CASES WIPO (2)

8/8/2019 INDIAN CASES WIPO (2)

1/6

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

House of Spices (India) Inc. v. DataNet Inc.

Case No. D2007-0845

1. The Parties

Complainant is House of Spices (India) Inc., Flushing, New York, United States ofAmerica, represented by Kalow & Springut LLP, United States of America.

Respondent is DataNet Inc., Forest Hills, New York, United States of America,represented by Lewis & Hand, LLP, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center)

on June 8, 2007. On June 13, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request forregistrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue, and the following day

eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the

Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.


2/6

In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively

deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 22, 2007. The

Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaintsatisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

(the Rules), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the

Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced June 28, 2007. In

accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), and an extension agreed by the parties, thedue date for Response was extended from July 18, 2007 to August 1, 2007. The Response

was filed with the Center on July 26, 2007.

Complainant requested a single-member Panel. Exercising its right under paragraph 5(b)

(iv) of the Rules, Respondent requested a three-member panel. On September 11, 2007,

the Center appointed Richard G. Lyon, David E. Sorkin, and Maxim H. Waldbaum aspanelists. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and has jurisdiction over this

proceeding. Each member of the Panel has submitted his Statement of Acceptance andDeclaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure

compliance with Rule 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant sells food products and groceries, primarily at wholesale. It owns a

trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for HOUSE OFSPICES in International Class 42, for retail stores and wholesale distributorships

featuring groceries. Complainant applied for this trademark in February 1996, it waspublished for opposition in November 1999, and it was issued in February 2000. An

officer of Complainant has submitted a declaration asserting that Complainant has used

this mark in United States Commerce since at least 1975, and that its annual sales last

year exceeded USD 60 million.

Respondent is a corporation owned by a single individual, D.K. Singh, a computer

programmer. Both Mr. Singh and Respondent are based in Forest Hills, New York,

United States of America, in the same borough of the City of New York in which

Complainant is located. Mr. Singh grew up on a farm in India, from which he or hisfamily or associates grew and sold various spices.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1998. Until May 2007 an internet

user who entered the disputed domain name into his or her browser received an errormessage and no content. Complainant submitted a copy of the House of Spices web page

accessed May 15, 2007, that included a number of links to grocery and grocery-related

products. Respondent acknowledged that this use occurred, but Mr. Singh declares upon


3/6

penalty of perjury that following Respondents change of servers its new provider added

the content and hyperlinks without Respondents knowledge or consent, and that when he

learned of this he immediately took steps to stop it. When the Panel accessed the disputeddomain name in September 2007, it received an under construction web page. The

Panels review of internet archives at www.archive.org confirms that until 2007 the

disputed domain name resolved to an error page.

5. Parties Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainants federally-registered trademark,

thus satisfying the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.Complainant has never authorized use of its mark, Respondent has never been known

individually or professionally by the disputed domain name, and Respondents non-use of

the disputed domain name for many years reveals no right or legitimate interest. The2007 click-through pages are not a bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

Respondents bad faith in registration and use is demonstrated from his registration of the

disputed domain name after Complainant had applied for its trademark and more than

twenty years after Complainant first began using its mark in commerce. Respondents use

of the disputed domain for links to competing products is further evidence of registrationand use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent contends as follows:

At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name Complainant had noregistered trademark, and Complainant has not alleged or provided any evidence of

common law rights. Without evidence of common law rights all of Complainants

allegations are entitled to no weight and should not be credited by the Panel. Many other

companies employ a combination of the words house andspice (includingHouse ofSpices) in trademarks for restaurants, grocery stores, purveyors of spices, and many other

businesses. Similarly, use of the phrase House of [goods] is so common as to be

mundane. Accordingly Complainant has no exclusive right to the phrasehouseofspices.

Respondents connection with a spice farm in India, which his family still owns, provides

rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While Respondent has not yet


4/6

developed an active website at the disputed domain name, he may do so, and as evidence

of this he has registered several other domain names including the wordspices. Use of a

descriptive or generic dictionary word as a domain name is presumptively legitimate.Should the Panel take account of the click-through page inadvertently in existence for a

short period of time, click-through revenues are also presumptively legitimate.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name two years before Complainant acquired

its trademark. Respondent did not register the disputed domain name with the intent tosell it to Complainant, Complainants competitors, or anyone else. Mr. Singh declares

that he has turned down a number of anonymous offers to purchase the disputed domain

name. Respondent received no revenues from any click-through pages advertentlycontained at the disputed domain name for a brief period of time. There is no basis to

impute prior knowledge of Complainant or its mark at the time Respondent registered the

disputed domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the

following:

(1) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or

confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed

domain name; and

(3) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. At thedate the Complaint was filed it held a nationally-registered trademark for HOUSE OF

SPICES. The existence of trademark rights is measured as of the date the Complaint is

filed, not the date Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel lacks

authority to set aside a nationally-registered mark. As the disputed domain name isidentical to Complainants mark except for the top level domain designation .com, this

Policy element has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made itsprima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimateinterest in the disputed domain name by showing that Respondent has never been known

by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use it by Complainant.

Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of a right or legitimate interest, and


5/6

contrary to the assertion of its counsel there is, at least in the absence of other factors, no

presumptive right to register a descriptive or generic phrase. Neither a stated but

unproven intention to develop a spice-related website at some point in the future norRespondents registration of other domain names makes out the demonstrable

preparations required by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the

requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Normally speaking, when a domain name is registered before a trademark right is

established, the registration of the domain name was not in bad faith because the

registrant could not have contemplated the complainants non-existent right.WIPO

Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (Overview),paragraph3.1, Consensus View. While in the United States of America trademark rights accrue

from use rather than registration, panels in Policy proceedings generally require proof

that the respondent actually knew of the complainant and its mark and intentionally

selected the disputed domain name to take advantage of that mark. Such knowledge maybe proven directly or inferentially. SeeNet2phone Inc v. Delta Three Inc., WIPO Case

No. D2007-0644 and cases cited at notes 5-11. When as in this proceeding the disputeddomain name consists of common words the complainants task is even more difficult.

American Appraisal Associates Inc. v. R Hagar,Kinja LLC, WIPO Case No. D2006-

1556.

There is scant evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant or its mark when itselected a commonly used phrase for its domain name. Complainant has provided no

evidence from which the Panel could infer any widespread or special identification of the

phrase with Complainant, no evidence of any business or other connection between the

parties that predates registration, and no other evidence from which the Panel could inferactual knowledge. Complainants only evidence is its officers summary comment that

Complainant has used the mark for thirty years and had USD 60 million in sales last year.

Panelists under the Policy rarely apply the constructive notice doctrine, requiring insteadthat complainant provide evidence that respondent actually knew of complainant and its

mark. Overview,paragraph 3.4. The rare exceptions to this consensus view have almost

always involved an evidentiary showing that established facts from which the Panel couldinfer that respondents knowledge was likely, or that respondent intentionally turned a

blind eye to the trademark rights of others. Complainant has made no such showing here.

As in SmartTix Entertainment Services, Inc. v. Anand Karunakaran/IconnectU, LLC(private domain holder) and 1 & 1 Internet, Inc. (domain registrant/proxy) , WIPO CaseNo. D2007-0966, a case with closely analogous facts, the record reflects none of the

usual indicia of cybersquatting, the limited class of cases that the Policy was enacted to

combat. Commercial use of the disputed domain name was non-existent for nine years

and then limited and possibly accidental. Respondent never sought to sell the disputeddomain name to Complainant or anyone else. Respondent has never competed with
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#31http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#31http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0644.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0644.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1556.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1556.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#34http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0966.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0966.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#31http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#31http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0644.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0644.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1556.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1556.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#34http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0966.htmlhttp://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0966.html


6/6

Complainant. Nothing suggests that Respondent took advantage of any goodwill in

Complainants mark.

In essence, Complainant has failed to supply the Panel with evidence that it held anycommon law rights to its mark prior to federal registration. Had Complainant, for

example, shown that its mark was famous prior to the registration of the disputed domainname, the Panel may have had something to consider in its favor on this issue.

As both registration and use in bad faith must be established, the Panel need not considerwhether the brief use of the disputed domain name for links to products competing with

those of Complainant constitutes use in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the

Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Richard G. Lyon

Presiding Panelist

Maxim H. Waldbaum

Panelist

David E. Sorkin

Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2007

Documents

INDIAN CASES WIPO (2)