официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Zurich Scudder Investments, Inc. v. Webdeal.com Inc.
Case No. D2002-0034
1. The Parties
The parties are Zurich Scudder Investments, Inc., 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154, U.S.A. (Complainant) and Webdeal.com Inc., 1787 Seaman Drive, Merrick. NY 11566, U.S.A. (Respondent).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute ("the Domain Name") is <scudderfunds.com>. The Registrar is Network Solutions, Inc., 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20170, U.S.A. ("Registrar").
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") in electronic form on January 16, 2002 and in hard copy (including the appropriate fee) with attachments on January 21, 2002. The Registrar verified the information required by Paragraphs 2 (a) and 4 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP Rules") on January 30, 2002. The Center’s formal requirements checklist was completed on February 4, 2002. The Panel agrees with the Center’s assessment concerning the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements.
A Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was sent to the Respondent (including its Technical, Administrative and Billing Contacts) by post/courier (to the Administrative/Billing Contact) with attachments, by email and facsimile on February 4, 2002. Deliveries to the email addresses were confirmed. Delivery by facsimile was not confirmed. Delivery by post/courier resulted in the package being returned to sender. Copies were also sent to Complainant, to ICANN and to the Registrar.
No Response having been received from the Respondent, the Center sent a Notification of Respondent Default on February 26, 2002.
Having submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, David W. Maher was appointed as the Single Member Panel on April 19, 2002. The Panel was required to forward its decision to the Center by May 3, 2002.
Rule 14 (a) of the UDRP Rules provides:
"In the event that a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by these Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint."
Having reviewed the file, the Panel concludes that the Complaint complied with the applicable formal requirements, was properly notified, and has been submitted to a duly appointed Panel in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy") applicable to the Domain Name. There were no further submissions, extensions granted or orders issued. The language of the proceeding is English.
4. Factual Background
Rule 14 (b) of the UDRP Rules provides:
"If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate."
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 14 (b), the Panel accepts Complainant’s characterization of the factual background contained in the Complaint, namely: Complainant is a well known and highly regarded investment management company that provides services to a wide range of consumers, including individuals, institutions and intermediaries. It maintains operations in a number of countries around the world and markets its services globally. Since its founding, Complainant has adopted and continuously used throughout the world certain well-known trademarks and service marks in connection with its products and services and to distinguish them from those of its competitors. As a consequence of the high quality of service Complainant has provided to its consumers, substantial goodwill has been generated for the benefit of Complainant, which is symbolized by Complainant’s name and its marks. Complainant owns numerous worldwide applications and registrations that incorporate the SCUDDER mark; copies of the registration certificates are attached to the Complaint. Complainant has also used SCUDDER FUNDS on its web site.
On March 13, 1999, Respondent registered the Domain Name. Respondent uses the Domain Name for a web site that states: "Interested in this domain?" and invites a response to the person listed as the Administrative and Billing Contact of Respondent. The Complaint also contains examples of other web sites maintained by Respondent containing the identical message with reference to other well-known trademarks in the field of financial services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name violates all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark rights in SCUDDER and SCUDDER FUNDS; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name violates the United States Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
B. Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in SCUDDER and SCUDDER FUNDS, based on its extensive use of the name and its trademark registrations. The Panel finds that the Domain Name "is identical or confusingly similar to" SCUDDER and to SCUDDER FUNDS.
Based upon the content of Respondent’s web sites, it appears that Respondent’s only interest in the Domain Name is holding it for sale, as it similarly holds other domain names for sale. There is nothing in the file to show that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. None of the circumstances enumerated in Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy apply to Respondent. Respondent has shown no use or preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Respondent been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name within the meaning of Paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the Policy.
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is in bad faith within the meaning of the circumstances defined in Paragraph 4 (b) of the Policy. Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name prevents Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding Domain Name, and Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
Pursuant to Paragraphs 4 (i) of the Policy, and 15 of the Rules, the Panel directs that the Domain Name <scudderfunds.com> be transferred to Complainant.
David W. Maher
Dated: May 3, 2002