To prevail in the proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the Complaint must show that the three requirements laid down in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met. Those requirements are:
(a) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark of the Complainant
The Complainant claims to be the proprietor of the trademark n° 2296236 that is registered in the UK since 23 August 2003. The mark is a figurative trademark consisting of a design and of the words CITYDATING.COM.
The Respondent does not dispute that the figurative trademark belongs to the Complainant, that it is valid, and that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
Therefore the Panel finds that the first requirement is met.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
For the second requirement, the Complainant must show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
The Complainant states that she did not give her consent to the Respondent to use her trademark. While this may be true, the Respondent may of course have other rights or legitimate interests that do not depend on the consent of the Complainant.
The Complainant also states that the Respondent has neither the intention nor the ability to conduct business, or otherwise be associated with the Domain Name. The Panel disagrees with this view.
Article 4(c) of the Policy provides that the Respondent can demonstrate his rights to and legitimate interests in the Domain Name by showing evidence of several circumstances, including that the Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Respondent states that it has a regular business practice of registering domain names that are based on descriptive words and phrases, which is confirmed in several decisions rendered under the UDRP (see: Super Supplements, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc., D2008-0244 (WIPO May 13, 2008); Jet Marques v. Vertical Axis, Inc., D2006-0250 (WIPO May 26, 2006), Nursefinders, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc., No. D2007-0417 (WIPO July 5, 2007)).
In this dispute, the Domain Name consists of the terms “CITY DATING” plus the “.com” extension. CITY DATING describes the services for which the Domain Name is used, i.e. services of dating in the City of London or in any other city. A visit to the website operated by the Respondent under the Domain Name shows that the Domain Name is indeed used in relation to dating services. The website offers many links to all kinds of dating sites and allegedly generates advertising revenues for the Respondent.
The Respondent, moreover, seems to be the owner of many other domain names consisting, among others, of the word “dating”, such as chatdating.com; datingsingle.com; ottawadating.net; irishdatingsite.com; datingintoronto.com; dataingcostarica.com; asiandatingonline.com; elpasodatingservice.com; chinesedatingservice.com; clevelanddatingservice.com; stlousionlinedating.com; chicagochristiandating.com; indianadating.org; louisvillespeeddating.com; buffalodatingservices.com; denverdatingservices.com; manhattanspeeddating.com; madisondatingservice.com; lasvegasspeeddating.com; arizonaspeeddating.com; orlandospeeddating.com; and buenosairesdating.com.
Obviously, other parties also own domain names which incorporate the word DATING and some parties even own domain names consisting of the words CITY and DATING, such as “Citydatingservice.com” and “Citydatingsource.com”.
As a result, the Respondent can also claim rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name which is descriptive for dating services in a city.
The mere fact that the Respondent does not directly offer dating services to the public, but uses the Domain Name for a website to post advertising links to dating sites, does not mean that the Respondent loses its rights or legitimate interests. The Panel refers in this respect to the case law cited by the Respondent which held “[w]here the domain name incorporates a common word, it is beyond debate that the posting of related advertising links constitute use of the domain name for the bona fide offering of goods and services.” (see: HP Hood LLC v. Hood.com, No. 313566 (NAF Oct. 20, 2004, where the Panel also added: “The ICANN Policy is very narrow in scope; it covers only clear cases of “cybersquatting” and “cyberpiracy,” not every dispute that might arise over a domain name.”); Dial-a-Mattress Operating Corp. v. Ultimate Search, No.D2001-0764 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2001); Etam, plc v. Alberta Hot Rods, D2000-1654 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001); GLB Servicos Interativos S.A. v. Ultimate Search, No. D2002-0189 (WIPO May 29, 2002).
Accordingly, the Respondent has demonstrated that it has rights to and a legitimate interest in the Domain and the Complaint must, therefore, be dismissed.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Even though the Complaint will be dismissed because the second requirement of the UDRP is not met, as set out under B above, the Panel will briefly address the bad faith requirement.
The Complainant alleged that the Respondent lost many domain name disputes, where its bad faith has been established. While it is true that in many decisions the panels found against the Respondent, there are at least as many decisions that were rendered in favour of the Respondent. It is not because the Respondent registered and used in bad faith, for instance, the domain name “Compart.com” (WIPO case n° D2009-0462) or “CARSAD.COM” (WIPO case n° D2009-0793), which are not descriptive at all, that the registration and use of the descriptive Domain Name “citydating.com” also constitutes bad faith.
As set out above, given that the Domain Name is descriptive for the dating services for which it is used, its registration and use do not easily qualify as acts of bad faith.
There is no indication that when the Respondent registered the Domain Name, it was aware or should have been aware of the trademark of the Complainant and that it nevertheless registered the Domain Name to trade on the reputation and goodwill of the trademark of the Complainant. This is even more so because the trademark is a figurative mark, of which the word CITYDATING is but a part.
The same applies to the argument that the Domain Name was registered with a name shield, so that the identity of the Respondent is not immediately revealed when searching in the Who Is database. The Respondent may prefer that its identity is not immediately disclosed and this is not automatically an indication of bad faith.
In a similar case against the Respondent, the Panel decided correctly: “The Panel does not regard the use of a privacy service as evidence in itself of bad faith. The Respondent’s record in domain name disputes indicates that he registers a large number of domain names, some in bad faith and some in good faith. In the Panel’s view, this record does not establish that the Domain Name in this case was registered in bad faith.” (WIPO D2007-795)
It is true that the Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale, but given the descriptive character of the Domain Name, the Panel is not convinced that the offer for sale is sufficient to constitute bad faith in registration and use.
Consequently, in the opinion of the Panel, it has not been shown that there is bad faith in accordance with the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy in this case. The Complaint must therefore be rejected. As was observed in the decision on WIPO case No. No. D2000-1470:
"This Panel is not a general domain name court, and the Policy is not designed to adjudicate all disputes of any kind that relate in any way to domain names. Rather, the Policy is narrowly crafted to apply to a particular type of abusive cybersquatting.”
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and Dissenting Opinion on this topic
The Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. This is defined in the Definitions section of the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”.
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides as follows:
“If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”
A majority of the panel ( Messrs Heremans and Petillion) is of the opinion that because the Complainant holds a registered trademark that is similar to the Domain Name and has used the mark for many years, there is no indication that the Complaint was brought to harass the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent was found to have acted in bad faith in some of the earlier UDRP proceedings in which it was involved.
Thus, while the Complainant has failed to establish all of the elements of a Policy complaint, the Panel does not conclude that the Complainant initiated this proceeding in bad faith. The Panel therefore declines to characterize the Complaint as an instance of reverse domain name hijacking.
Panelist Brown respectfully disagrees with the opinion of the majority on this issue and would make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. His reasons for so finding are as follows. In a regular case the circumstances outlined by the majority may be enough to justify not making a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, but the present case is one where there is an indication that the complaint was brought to harass the Respondent. That is because the dispute was originally settled on July 14, 2009, but the Complainant abandoned the settlement and instituted the first proceeding at WIPO. It has already been explained under OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS that the Complainant started those proceedings, but requested on August 31, 2009 that they be terminated and that they were terminated by WIPO on September 3, 2009. The Complainant then began the present proceeding on September 17, 2009.
There has been no explanation given by the Complainant for this sequence of events and the Complainant has not filed a supplementary submission to contribute to the discussion, despite having been criticised for her conduct in the Response in a way that called for a reply. The panel is therefore left in the position where it understands that having launched one proceeding on a dubious basis, the Complainant abandoned the proceeding and started a new proceeding, presumably putting the Respondent to a new round of expense and inconvenience, without any explanation and accusing the Respondent of bad faith. That is a form of harassment of the Respondent as one of the definitions of harassment invokes the notion of persistent attacks or questions which seems to have been the practice engaged in by the Complainant in bringing the present case.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
|