P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA

SEE AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

 

NETGROCER, INC.
1112 Corporate Road
North Brunswick, N.J. 08902

 

COMPLAINANT,

vs.

ANCHOR
7131 West Yarmouth Ct.
West Bloomfield, MI 48322

 

RESPONDENT.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

No.: FA0002000094207

  1. The Parties

    Complainant is NetGrocer, Inc., located at 1112 Corporate Road, North Brunswick, N.J. 08902 ("Complainant"). Respondent is Anchor, located at 7131 West Yarmouth Ct., West Bloomfield, MI 48322 ("Respondent").

  1. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)

    2. The domain name at issue is <netgrocer.org>. The registrar is Register.com, Inc. (the "Registrar"), 575 Eighth Ave., 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018.

  2. Procedural History

The National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") received the complaint on February 25, 2000. The Forum verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). The Forum thereafter sent the Respondent a notification of the administrative proceeding together with copies of the complaint. This notification was sent by the methods required under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is February 29, 2000.

On March 7, 2000, the Registrar verified to the Forum that:

    1. The domain name at issue was registered with Register.com; and
    2. That the registration for the disputed domain name was on "Hold" status.

Respondent did not submit a response to the complaint within twenty (20) days as required by Rule 5(a). The Administrative Panel issues its decision below based upon the complaint, the filed documents, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

  1. Factual Background

    Complainant first used the NETGROCER mark in commerce on May 4, 1997. Complainant is currently the owner of the registered United States service mark NETGROCER (Registration No. 2,217,548) which was issued on January 12, 1999 for computerized on-line ordering services featuring consumer goods, namely groceries, in class 42 (U.S. CLS.100 and 101). Complainant also has two pending trademark applications for NetGrocer (App. Nos. 75/508,254 and 75/480,948).

    In addition, Complainant registered the domain name <netgrocer.com> in 1995 and has widely used this domain name on the Internet.

    Respondent registered the domain name <netgrocer.org> on December 31,1999. No evidence was presented suggesting that there is an active web site associated with the <netgrocer.org> domain name.

  1. Parties’ Contentions
  1. Complainant contends that Registrant’s domain name <netgrocer.org> is identical to or substantially similar to Complainant’s NETGROCER service mark.
  2. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
  3. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
  4. Respondent has not contested that the domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s service mark.
  5. Respondent has not contested that it has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
  6. Respondent has not contested that it has acted in bad faith in registering and using the domain name.
  1. Discussion and Findings

To obtain relief under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

    1. That 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. That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
    3. That the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
  1. Similarity Between Registrant’s Domain Name and Complainant’s Service Mark.

    In this case, it is clear that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical to the registered service mark owned by Complainant. The distinction between .org and .com is not significant in determining similarity. The panel finds that the domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered service mark.

  1. Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name.

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, evidence of a registrant’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name includes:

    1. Demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute;
    2. An indication that the registrant has been commonly known by the domain name even if it has acquired no trademark rights; or
    3. Legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

Respondent has made no showing with respect to any of the above factors. Similarly, Complainant has asserted, without providing any affirmative evidence, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Despite the limited evidence, the Panel believes that it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name which is essentially identical to Complainant’s registered service mark, NETGROCER.

  1. Respondent’s Bad Faith Registration and Use of the Domain Name.

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use includes:

    1. Circumstances indicating the domain name was registered for the purpose of resale to the trademark owner or competitor for profit;
    2. A pattern of conduct showing an attempt to prevent others from obtaining a domain name corresponding to their trademarks;
    3. Registration of the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of competitor; or
    4. Using the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark owner’s mark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has not met its burden of proof on the issue of bad faith registration and use. There is no evidence of an attempt by Registrant to sell the domain name for profit. There is no evidence that Respondent engages in a pattern of registering the trademarks of others as domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Indeed, there is no evidence of any use, much less bad faith use, of the contested domain name. Finally, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark which, after all, was not registered with the U.S. PTO until after Respondent had registered the domain name in question.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof on a prima facie issue: Registrant’s bad faith in the registration and use of the contested domain name. Accordingly, under the standards applicable to this proceeding, the Panel concludes that Complainant is not entitled to relief on the record presented.

 

  1. Decision

 

We find in favor of Respondent and deny Complainant’s request for relief under paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy.

Date: April 7, 2000 Nelson A. Diaz

Presiding Panelist

 

AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
No.: FA0002000094207

 

THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
P.O. BOX 50191
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55405 USA

NETGROCER, INC.
1112 Corporate Road
North Brunswick, N.J. 08902

COMPLAINANT,

vs.

ANCHOR
7131 West Yarmouth Ct.
West Bloomfield, MI 48322

RESPONDENT.

File No.: FA0002000094207

This is an Amendment to the Administrative Panel Decision with regard to the domain name dispute between the parties. The last sentence in the second to last paragraph in 6. Discussion and Findings above should read as follows: "Finally, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark by registering the domain name <netgrocer.org>."

The remainder of 6. Discussion and Findings remains unchanged.

Having considered the above revision, the Panel reiterates its finding that Complainant has not met its burden of proof on the issue of bad faith registration and use of the contested domain name. Accordingly, the Panel reaffirms its decision in favor of Respondent and denies Complainant’s request for relief under paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

Date: April 11, 2000Nelson A. Diaz

Presiding Panelist