WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
General Electric Company v. Normina Anstalt a/k/a Igor Fyodorov
Case No. D2000-0452
1. The Parties
The Complainant is General Electric Company, a corporation organized in the State of New York, United States of America (USA), with place of business in Fairfield, Connecticut, USA.
The Respondent is Normina Anstalt, also known as Igor Fyodorov, with address in Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain names are "", "" and "".
The registrar of the disputed domain names is Network Solutions, Inc., with business address in Herndon, Virginia, USA.
3. Procedural History
The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:
a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a complaint via e-mail, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO") on May 19, 2000, and by courier mail received by WIPO on May 22, 2000. Payment by Complainant of the requisite filing fees accompanied the courier mailing. On May 23, 2000, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. On May 31, 2000, WIPO completed its formal filing compliance requirements checklist.
b) On May 31, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail, telefax and courier mail. Courier records show successful delivery to Respondent�s address. Notification was also transmitted via e-mail, telefax and courier mail to Respondent�s Technical Contact.
c) On June 22, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification to Respondent of its default in responding to the complaint by via e-mail, telefax and courier mail.
d) On June 22, 2000, WIPO invited the undersigned to serve as panelist in this administrative proceeding, subject to receipt of an executed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence ("Statement and Declaration"). On June 22, 2000, the undersigned transmitted by fax the executed Statement and Declaration to WIPO.
e) On June 27, 2000, Complainant and Respondent were notified by WIPO of the appointment of the undersigned sole panelist as the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") in this matter. WIPO notified the Panel that, absent exceptional circumstances, it would be required to forward its decision to WIPO by July 10, 2000. On June 27, 2000, the Panel received an electronic file in this matter by e-mail from WIPO. The Panel subsequently received a hard copy of the file in this matter by courier mail from WIPO.
The Panel has not received any requests from Complainant or Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the parties (taking note of Respondent�s default in responding to the complaint). The proceedings have been conducted in English.
4. Factual Background
Complainant is the holder of a substantial number of trademark registrations on the Principal Register at the USPTO for "GE" as a letter mark and "GE" as a stylized monogram mark. Registrations for the block letter mark include No. 1203475, dated June 2, 1982, covering, inter alia, electric lamps; No. 1191120, dated March 2, 1982, covering, inter alia, diagnostic apparatus; No. 983140, dated May 7, 1974, covering, inter alia, silicon sealants; No. 1201681, dated July 20, 1982, covering, inter alia, synthetic resins, and; No. 1173260, dated October 13, 1981, covering, inter alia, plastic sheeting. Registrations for the stylized monogram mark include No. 1051200, dated October 26, 1976, covering, inter alia, electric lamps; No 1017222, dated June 5, 1975 covering, inter alia, synthetic resins; No. 1017393, dated August 5, 1975, covering, inter alia, locomotives, and; No. 1790247, dated August 31, 1993, covering, inter alia, medical diagnostic apparatus. (Complaint, para. 12.) These registrations are valid and subsisting. The GE marks have been used in commerce since at least 1974 (based on the foregoing registrations), and continue to be used in commerce. The GE marks have been widely advertised and are well known.
Complainant has registered and uses the domain name "". According to a Network Solutions� WHOIS database query printout, this domain name was registered on August 5, 1986. Complainant is the named registrant (Complaint, Annex E).
Complainant is the holder of a substantial number of trademark registrations on the Principal Register at the USPTO for the words "General Electric". Registrations include No. 320,304, dated December 25, 1934, covering, inter alia, dynamo electric machines; No. 373,916, dated December 26, 1939, covering, inter alia, shut-off valves; No 1191577, dated March 9, 1982, covering, inter alia, electronic and nuclear testing equipment, and: No. 1448350, dated July 21, 1987, covering, inter alia, electric lightbulbs. (Complaint, para. 12) These registrations are valid and subsisting. The "General Electric" mark has been used in commerce since at least 1934 (based on the foregoing registrations), and continues to be used in commerce. The "General Electric" mark has been widely advertised and is well known.
Complainant has registered and uses the domain name "". According to a Network Solutions� WHOIS database query printout, this domain name was registered on September 12, 1995. Complainant is the named registrant (Complaint, Annex E).
Network Solutions� WHOIS database query response (Complaint, Annex B) indicates that "Normina Anstalt", with Administrative Contact at "Fyodorov, Igor", is registrant of the domain name "GENERALELECTRIC.ORG". The record of this registration was created on March 13, 1999, and was last updated on March 13, 1999 (id.).
Network Solutions� Verification Response of May 30, 2000, to WIPO�s Request for Registrar Verification indicates that Normina Anstalt, with Administrative Contact at "Fyodorov, Igor", is registrant of the domain names "GEWAREHOUSE.COM" and "GEWAREHOUSE.ORG" (as well as "GENERALELECTRIC.ORG"). Each of such names is in "active status".
There is no indication on the record of this proceeding that Respondent has maintained a website identified by any of the disputed domain names.
Complainant has submitted affidavit evidence from its counsel (Sworn Affidavit of Orrie Dinstein, May 15, 2000, Complaint, Annex C), indicating that in response to Complainant�s indication that "GE retained us to get back the GeneralE domain name. Mr. Fyodorov immediately offered to sell the GeneralE name to Complainant." (id., para. 5) A price of $250,000 was subsequently proposed by Mr. Fyodorov (as evidenced by an exchange of e-mail) (id., and Complaint, Annex G). At a later date, in response to counsel�s query regarding other domain names using the GE mark, Mr. Fyodorov offered to sell the three disputed domain names for a total price of $490,000. Counsel for Complainant also avers that "Mr. Fyodorov also told me during the call [on or about May 11, 2000] that he and his alleged partners plan to start selling various products in the United States and that they planned to use the name General Electric for their business (Affidavit, id., at para. 7). In light of Respondent�s failure to respond to Complainant�s complaint in this proceeding, and in light of the undertaking evidenced by a sworn affidavit of legal counsel, the Panel accepts the representations as presented in the Affidavit of Orrie Dinstein as undisputed fact.
The Service Agreement in effect between Respondent and Network Solutions subjects Respondent to Network Solutions� dispute settlement policy, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and with implementing documents approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") requires that domain name registrants submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding conducted by an approved dispute resolution service provider, of which WIPO is one, regarding allegations of abusive domain name registration (Policy, para. 4(a)). Respondent has not contested that it is properly before this Administrative Panel.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant states:
"12. (a) This Amended Complaint is based on the following grounds:
Since long prior to Respondent�s registration of the domain names, Complainant has continuously owned and used the name and mark �General Electric� as well as the name and mark �GE� and a stylized GE monogram logo (collectively, the �GE Marks�) in connection with GE�s products and services. Large numbers of Complainant�s GE Marks are registered with government authorities in the United States and other countries�.
***
"GE�s right to use the GE marks registered with the USPTO as alleged above has become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. � 1065 and 1115, and the certificates of registration thereof constitute �conclusive evidence� of �the validity of the registered mark[s] and of the registration of the mark[s], of the registrant�s ownership of the mark[s], and of the registrant�s exclusive right to use the registered mark[s] in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the registration.� 15 U.S.C. � 1115.
"(b) GE has spent billions of dollars in advertising and promoting the GE marks in connection with its products and services throughout the United States, and GE has sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of these products and services under and in connection with the General Electric marks throughout the United States.
"(c) By virtue of GE�s long use, widespread advertising and enormous sales, the GE marks have become well-recognized and famous, and represent goodwill of extraordinary value.
"(d) The Complainant also owns, has registered and uses a domain name that includes the General Electric mark at www.GeneralE, as well as the GE mark at www.GE.com. Copies of NSI�s WHOIS database information pages showing Complainant�s registration of these domain names are attached�.
"(e) The first domain name at issue, GeneralE, consists of and is identical with the General Electric trademark and trade name of Complainant. Complainant maintains an active web site at www.GE.com, and the GeneralE domain name is linked to the GE.com domain name so that all attempts to reach www.GeneralE link automatically to GE�s home page at www.GE.com. The second and third domain names, GEW and GEW consist of the GE trademark and trade name combined with the word �warehouse.� The letters �GE� have no generic meaning. As stated, Complainant maintains an active web site at www.GE.com. In addition, Complainant owns and operates numerous divisions and subsidiaries using a �GE� prefix as part of their name, such as GE Medical Systems, GE Capital Services, etc. GE also registered and owns numerous domain names incorporating the GE mark, including GEL, GEW, GEHealthP, GEB. GE maintains various other web sites with the GE mark, such as GEA. Further, GE has numerous warehouses throughout the United States and the rest of the world for its various goods. As a result of this long and varied use of GE in combination with other terms to symbolize the products, services and goodwill associated with various lines of business conducted by GE, the public worldwide has came to associate such combinations with Complainant General Electric Company. In light of this expansive use of the GE mark together with other words, Respondent�s registration of these domain names creates a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant�s GE mark as to source, sponsorship, application, or endorsement of the Respondent�s web site by GE.
"(f) The Respondent�s lack of rights in the domain names and its bad faith in registering and using them are demonstrated by numerous facts. Specifically, Complainant submits the following evidence:
(i) Respondent�s true purpose in registering the domain names is to sell them for a profit as evidenced by his sale offer.
(ii) In the absence of a sale, Respondent has indicated that he would use the domain names for infringing purposes in the United States. See Dinstein Aff. para. 7.
(iii) Respondent is using the domain names without the consent or approval of GE.
(iv) Respondent appears to have no intellectual property rights in the domain names.
(v) Respondent appears to have no bona fide commercial or noncommercial basis for using the domain names.
(vi) Respondent has used false and misleading registration information in all three instances. As stated above, Mr. Fyodorov has admitted that there is no entity by the name of Normina Anstalt. The address provided to the WHOIS database is also inaccurate and does not belong to Normina Anstalt or Mr. Fyodorov. See Dinstein Aff. paras. 2-3. �
(vii) Respondent's registration of the domain names creates a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant�s GE marks as to source, sponsorship, or endorsement by GE.
"(g) Complainant, upon learning of Respondent�s registration of the domain names, contacted Mr. Fyodorov and inquired as to his intent. Mr. Fyodorov, who identified himself as the real registrant (allegedly acting on behalf of third parties in Russia), offered to sell the GeneralE domain name to Complainant. Subsequently, Respondent sent Complainant�s counsel an e-mail requesting the amount of $250,000 in return for a transfer of the GeneralE domain name to GE. A copy of that e-mail message is attached �. See Dinstein Aff. para. 5. Thereafter, Complainant�s counsel called Mr. Fyodorov again to inquire if he has other domain names registered that use the GE mark. Mr. Fyodorov admitted to registering the GEW and GEW domain names and offered them for sale as well for the combined amount of $490,000. See Dinstein Aff. para. 6. It is thus abundantly clear that Respondent has knowingly registered the domain names, knowing they incorporate very famous marks, whose sole use by Respondent can be an infringing use, with the sole desire and intent to sell the domain names for financial gain." (Complaint)
Complainant requests that the Panel ask the Registrar to transfer the domain names "", "" and "" from Respondent to it (id., para. 13).
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant�s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 (with implementing documents approved on October 24, 1999), is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration. This sole panelist has in an earlier decision discussed the background of the administrative panel procedure, and the legal characteristics of domain names, and refers to this earlier decision for such discussion 1. The Panel will confine itself to making determinations necessary to resolve this administrative proceeding.
It is essential to dispute resolution proceedings that fundamental due process requirements be met. Such requirements include that a respondent have notice of proceedings that may substantially affect its rights. The Policy, and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), establish procedures intended to assure that respondents are given adequate notice of proceedings commenced against them, and a reasonable opportunity to respond (see, e.g., para. 2(a), Rules).
In this case, the Panel is satisfied that WIPO took all steps reasonably necessary to notify the Respondent of the filing of the complaint and initiation of these proceedings, and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a reply is not due to any omission by WIPO. There is ample evidence in the form of air courier receipts and confirmations of the sending of e-mail and telefax that Respondent was notified of the complaint and commencement of the proceedings (see Procedural History, supra).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three elements that must be established by a Complainant to merit a finding that a Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration, and to obtain relief. These elements are that:
(i) Respondent�s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) Respondent�s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
Because the Respondent has defaulted in providing a response to the allegations of Complainant, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint (Rules, para. 14(a)), and certain factual conclusions may be drawn by the Panel on the basis of Complainant�s undisputed representations (id., para. 15(a)).
Complainant is the holder of multiple trademark registrations regarding various classes of products for "General Electric" in the United States and is using that mark in commerce (see Factual Background, supra). Complainant�s registration of the trademark on the Principal Register at the PTO establishes a presumption of validity of the mark in U.S. law 2. The Panel determines that Complainant has rights in the trademark "General Electric". Based on the December 25, 1934, date of Complainant�s registration of the trademark "General Electric" (the earliest of those submitted in this proceeding by Complainant), and without prejudice to whether Complainant may hold earlier-arising rights in the mark, the Panel determines that Complainant�s rights in the trademark arose prior to Respondent�s registration, on March 13, 1999, of the disputed domain name "".
Complainant is the holder of multiple trademark registrations regarding various classes of products for "GE" in the United States and is using that mark in commerce (see Factual Background, supra) 3. Complainant�s registration of the trademark on the Principal Register at the PTO establishes a presumption of validity of the mark in U.S. law 4. The Panel determines that Complainant has rights in the trademark "GE". Based on the May 7, 1974, date of Complainant�s registration of the trademark "GE" (the earliest of those submitted in this proceeding by Complainant), Respondent�s failure to provide evidence of the dates of its registration of the disputed domain names, and without prejudice to whether Complainant may hold earlier-arising rights in the "GE" mark, the Panel determines that Complainant�s rights in the "GE" trademark arose prior to Respondent�s registration of the disputed domain names "" and "".
Respondent has registered the domain name "". This name is identical to Complainant�s trademark "General Electric", except that (1) the domain name eliminates the space between the words "General" and "Electric", (2) the domain name adds the generic top-level domain name ".org", and (3) the domain name employs lower case letters, while the trademark is generally used with initial capital letters.
Insofar as domain names are not case sensitive, and the elimination of spacing is dictated by technical factors and is common practice among domain name registrants, the Panel concludes that use of the lower case letter format in "", and the elimination of the space between "General" and "Electric" to form "", are differences without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing "" to "General Electric". 5 Similarly, the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ".org" is likewise without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ".org" is one of only several such gTLDs, and ".org" does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services 6.
For purposes of this proceeding, it is unnecessary to decide whether, in light of these factors, Respondent�s domain name is "identical" to Complainant�s trademark, since Respondent�s domain name "", is without doubt confusingly similar to Complainant�s trademark "General Electric".
Respondent has registered the domain names "" and "". These names are identical to Complainant�s trademark "GE", except that (1) the domain names each add a generic top-level domain name, ".com" and ".org" respectively, (2) the domain names each employ lower case letters, while the trademark is used with capital letters, and (3) each domain name adds the word "warehouse" following Complainant�s mark, without a space between terms.
The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) names ".com" and ".org" is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ".com" and ".org" are two of only several such gTLDs, and ".com" and ".org" do not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services 7. Insofar as domain names are not case sensitive, the Panel concludes that use of the lower case letter format in "" and "" is likewise without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing "" and "" to "GE".
Each of the disputed domain names adds the word "warehouse" to Complainant�s trademark. In each case there is no space between the mark and the added word. The absence of a space is dictated by technical factors and customary practice among domain name registrants and users. The absence of a space between Complainant�s mark and the word "warehouse" is without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing the disputed domain names to Complainant�s "GE" mark.
"Warehouse" is a generic word used as a noun or verb in the English language. As a noun, it may refer to a facility where goods are stored, or to a wholesale or retail establishment where large inventories are carried 8.
Respondent has not, by adding a generic word following Complainant�s letter mark created a new or different mark in which it has rights or legitimate interests, nor has it altered the underlying mark held by Complainant.
Complainant has not used the word "warehouse" in combination with its "GE" mark such that secondary meaning is established in the trademark "GE Warehouse". It appears that Complainant�s use of the term "warehouse" has been in connection with describing its storage and distribution activities, and not to identify itself as a source of goods 9. In this sense, Complainant has not established exclusive rights in the combination mark "GE Warehouse".
However, Complainant�s "GE" mark is well known. Its use by Respondent in a domain name in combination with the generic word "warehouse" (commonly associated with the retail and wholesale distribution of products) is likely to cause consumers to associate the combinations "" and "" with Complainant as the source of products on or sponsor of a website identified by one of those names.
The Panel determines that the domain names "" and "" are confusingly similar to Complainant�s trademark "GE" in the sense of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names (as to each disputed name) that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
There is no evidence on the record that would indicate that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names "", "" and "", other than that it has registered these domain names and has used them in a manner hereafter determined to be in bad faith. If mere registration of domain names was sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, then all registrants would have such rights or interests, and no complainant could succeed on a claim of abusive registration. Construing the Policy so as to avoid an illogical result, the Panel concludes that mere registration does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names so as to avoid the application of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Similarly, bad faith registration and use of domain names does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the names.
The Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Thus, the Complainant has established the second element necessary to prevail on its claim that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
The Policy indicates that certain circumstances may, "in particular but without limitation", be evidence of bad faith (Policy, para. 4(b)). Among these circumstances are (1) that the domain name has been registered or acquired by a respondent "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [respondent�s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name" (Id., para. 4(b)(i)); (2) that a respondent has registered the domain name "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct" (id., para. 4(b)(ii)), and (3) that a respondent "by using the domain name, � [has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant�s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent�s] web site or location of a product or service on [its] web site or location" (id., para. 4(b)(iv)).
In this case, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant in response to an inquiry from Complainant that indicated a desire to acquire the names. Standing alone, an offer to sell domain names in response to a query from another party does not constitute bad faith within the meaning of the Policy. There is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent.
The Respondent in this case has offered to sell to Complainant, at a substantial price, domain names corresponding to marks in which Complainant has rights. Absent some exceptional justification from Respondent, it is reasonable to infer that it registered the names with the primary intention of selling them to Complainant (or to a competitor) for valuable consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the names. This constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
Also, by registering several domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant�s trademarks, Respondent has prevented Complainant from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names. The registration of several names corresponding to Complainant�s trademarks is sufficient to constitute a pattern of such conduct, and thus to constitute bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
In the interests of administrative economy, the Panel will not address other potential bad faith activities on the part of Respondent.
Respondent is determined to have registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. Complainant has established the third and final element necessary for a finding that the Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
The Panel will therefore request the registrar to transfer the domain names "", "" and "" to the Complainant.
7. Decision
Based on its finding that the Respondent, Normina Anstalt, also known as Igor Fyodorov, has engaged in abusive registration of the domain names "", "" and "" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the domain names "", "" and "" be transferred to the Complainant, General Electric Company.
Frederick M. Abbott
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 10, 2000
Footnotes:
1. See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044, decided March 16, 2000.
2. 15 USCS � 1057(b). See, e.g., Avery Dennison v. Sumpton (9th Cir. 1999), 189 F.3d 868.
3. For purposes of making its determination in this proceeding, the Panel does not need to consider the significance of Complaint�s stylized "GE" mark.
4. Supra note 2.
5. See Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999).
6. See Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market, 202 F.3d 489, 498, (2d Cir. 2000), citing Brookfield, id. For purposes of its decision, the Panel need not address whether ".org" may be capable of acquiring secondary meaning in another context.
7. Id. For purposes of its decision, the Panel need not address whether ".com" and ".org" may be capable of acquiring secondary meaning in another context.
8. The sole panelist in this proceeding served as presiding panelist in Pet Warehouse v. Pets.Com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0105, decided April 13, 2000, in which the word "warehouse" is analyzed in some detail.
9. Complainant stated: "Further, GE has numerous warehouses throughout the United States and the rest of the world for its goods." Complaint, para. 12(e).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy