официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
Arbitration and Mediation Center
Owens Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc v. Hammerstone
Case No. D2003-0903
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Owens Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc, Illinois, United States of America,
represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Hammerstone, Fredericksburg, Virginia, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <cultured-stone.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center")
on November 12, 2003. On November 13, 2003, the Center transmitted
by email to Network Solutions, Inc. a request for registrar verification in
connection with the domain name at issue. On November 18, 2003, Network
Solutions, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response
confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the
contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The
Center verified that the Complaint satisfied 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 Dispute Resolution 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 on November 19, 2003.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was
December 9, 2003. The Response was filed with the Center on December 2, 2003.
The Center appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels as the Sole Panelist in this matter
on December 15, 2003. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted.
The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality
and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules,
4. Factual Background
Complainant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc. is a holding company owned
by Owens-Corning. Owens-Corning is a well-known industry leader in the field
of building materials and related products. Owens-Corning acquired Cultured
Stone in 1997. Cultured Stone is one of the world’s leading makers of manufactured
stone veneer, selling its product in over twenty (20) countries. Hundreds of
precast stone veneers and related products make up the CULTURED STONE line,
all of which are sold under the CULTURED STONE mark. These goods are sold not
only by Owens-Corning, but also by authorized dealers across the U.S. and other
Complainant owns a number of trademarks, including the mark CULTURED STONE,
as used since July 1969, in connection with manufactured stone veneer. The mark
is the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration No 925,359, which issued on December 14, 1971.
Respondent registered the domain name in dispute, <cultured-stone.com>;
with Network Solutions, Inc. on December 5, 2002. On August 28, 2003,
Owens-Corning sent a letter to Respondent via "Certified Mail" asserting
that the registration and use of "www.cultured-stone.com" violates
5. Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the <cultured-stone.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registered mark CULTURED STONE, given that they differ
only in that the domain name uses a hyphen instead of a space between the terms
CULTURED and STONE and that the domain name includes the top-level domain ".com."
Complainant further asserts that Respondent has no legitimate rights in the
disputed domain name. It alleges that the domain name is not associated with
Respondent’s own web page but instead is used to redirect Internet users to
Respondent’s home page at "www.hammerstone.net." Respondent advertises
its goods, including veneer stone products, at this site.
It is also maintained by Complainant that Respondent is not commonly known
by the domain name or any portion thereof, that Complainant has never assigned,
sold, or transferred any rights in its CULTURED STONE mark to Respondent or
granted permission to Respondent to use or register the CULTURED STONE mark
as a domain name, and that, prior to notice of this dispute, Respondent was
not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services. Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not making
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
With respect to the issue of "bad faith" registration and use, Complainant
asserts that Respondent had both actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s
CULTURED STONE mark at the time the domain name was registered. Complainant
further argues that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the
purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, i.e., Owens-Corning, and
that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in an intentional attempt
to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion
with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement
of Respondent’s website and the products advertised thereon.
In its Response, Respondent points out that its masonry division, HammerStone
Masonry, installs all brands of manufactured stone, including Owens-Corning.
The disputed website, it contends, is owned and intended for use to legitimately
showcase its masonry work of all cultured stone products. Respondent contends
that it is "appropriate, legitimate and lawful" to promote its masonry
work and to reference all the masonry products it installs.
Respondent further argues that the term "cultured stone" is generic
and that such term has been used by Respondent and others for over 30 years,
predating Complainant’s date of first use.
Respondent disputes Complainant’s contention that the disputed website diverts
customers from purchasing Complainant’s products, noting that Respondent bids
on projects, not products. According to Respondent, "[m]ost inquiries are
requests for masonry labor, and the product has already been specified by plans.
To change those plans and substitute another product is impossible. HammerStone
Masonry in fact purchases Cultured Stone brand products when the project specifies
them, which gets to the real reason [HammerStone] Masonry established the ‘www.cultured-stone.com’
Respondent accuses Complainant of having established an anticompetitive, monopolistic
distribution system in Virginia. According to Respondent, Owens-Corning distributors
have caused HammerStone Masonry to lose many projects by failing to provide
timely delivery of product and/or samples. "HammerStone Masonry established
the "www.cultured-stone.com" website to sell masonry services
against a monopolistic, closed distribution channel established by [Owens-Corning].
It did NOT, nor does it today, sell competitive products."
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There appears to be no dispute, and the Panel finds, that Respondent’s domain
name, <cultured-stone.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
CULTURED STONE. The addition of a hyphen and the top-level domain designation
"com" are not sufficient to avoid the conclusion that the domain name
and mark are confusingly similar. (See, e.g., Rolls Royce PLC v. Hallofpain,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1709 (February 19, 2001)
(stating that "[t]he use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens
and spaces, does not alter the fact that a domain name is identical to a mark");
Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0127 (April 22, 2000) (stating that "the addition
of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is … without legal significance
since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants").
Respondent, however, does appear to dispute that Complainant has any rights
in the term "Cultured Stone," contending that the term is generic.
The Panel notes, however, that Complainant owns a registration for the mark
CULTURED STONE and that such registration carries with it a presumption
that the mark is valid, i.e., not generic. While the Response indicates that
Respondent commissioned a survey on the issue of whether "Cultured Stone"
is generic, the results of such survey were not presented to the Panel. Giving
due deference to the determination of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, the administrative agency charged with responsibility for determining
the registrability of marks, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
the Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark CULTURED STONE.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel concludes that Complainant has established that Respondent does not
have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name. First, the Panel
concludes that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services. Panel decisions are legion
to the effect that use of a domain name that is either identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark renders such use illegitimate. See, e.g., Chase
Manhattan Corp. v. John Whitely, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0346 (June 12, 2000); Chanel, Inc. v. Estco
Technology Group, WIPO Case No. D2000-0413
(September 18, 2000) (stating that "the Panel finds that, in
order for [r]espondent’s Internet business to be ‘legitimate’ under the Policy,
it must make non-infringing use of [c]omplainant’s world-famous trademark.")
Further, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly referred to
by the challenged domain name or that it is engaged in noncommercial or fair
use of the name. With respect to the latter, the evidence indicates that the
domain name is used to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s home page and
to promote the products advertised there.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Finally, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established that the domain
name was registered and is being used in "bad faith." While Respondent
maintains that it does not sell products that compete with Complainant’s products,
the evidence, in particular Exhibit 5 to the complaint, demonstrates otherwise.
Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent registered the domain name "primarily
for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor," within the
meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.
The evidence also indicates, and the Panel so holds, that Respondent uses the
domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to its "hammerstone.net" site by creating a likelihood of confusion
with Complainant’s CULTURED STONE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation,
or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv)
of the Policy. That is to say, consumers are likely to believe, based on Respondent’s
use of the <cultured-stone.com> domain name, that such site and/or the
"hammerstone.net" site, have some relationship with Complainant.
There is also other indications of "bad faith" in this case, including
Respondent’s apparent failure to ever respond to Complainant’s letter of August 28, 2003.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the
Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <cultured-stone.com>
be transferred to the Complainant.
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Dated: December 29, 2003
1. See Section 7(b) of U.S. Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. §1057(b).
2. Respondent concedes, in its Response,
that such a link was established but was to have been discontinued on November
13, 2003. However, according to Respondent, the website has been frozen by Network
Solutions, Inc. pending the outcome of this proceeding.
3. Exhibit 5 is a printout from the website
located at "www.hammerstone.net." This is the site Internet users are redirected
to when they search for the "cultured-stone.com site." The "hammerstone.net"
site notes that HammerStone is the source of concrete stone products, including