• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUMDECISION
Old Seminole Heights Neighborhood Association Inc. v. Seminole Heights Foundation c/oChristie HessClaim Number: FA0907001272428
PARTIES
Complainant is
Old Seminole Heights Neighborhood Association Inc.
(“Complainant”), represented by
Bradford A. Patrick 
, of 
Chamberlin Patrick PA
,Florida, USA. Respondent is
Seminole Heights Foundation
c/o
Christie Hess
(“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is
<oldseminoleheightsfoundation.org>
, registered with
GoDaddy.com, Inc
.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and tothe best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically onJuly 7, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint onJuly 13, 2009.On July 7, 2009, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National ArbitrationForum that the
<oldseminoleheightsfoundation.org>
domain name is registered withGoDaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc.registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionPolicy (the “Policy”).On July 21, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of AdministrativeProceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 10, 2009 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted toRespondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’sregistration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@oldseminoleheightsfoundation.org by e-mail.
 
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 10, 2009.On August 14, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by asingle-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hector A. Manoff asPanelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent toComplainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant1. Although Complainant asserts it has not registered the OLD SEMINOLE HEIGHTSmark, it enjoys common law rights to its name “Old Seminole Heights” as a service mark for its activities as a neighborhood association.2. Complainant asserts that geographic marks, although descriptive, can be subject to protection if they have acquired secondary meaning.3. Complainant has used “Old Seminole Heights” in its current form since 1996 and, previously, as “Old Seminole Heights Preservation Committee” since the mid 1980s.4. Complainant has engaged in a wide range of physical and electronic advertising.5. Complainant has undertaken to promote the “Old Seminole Heights” name anddevelop its meaning on a sustained basis for more than twenty years.6. Respondent has no legitimate rights in the use of the domain name
<oldseminoleheightsfoundation.org>
, because it was stolen from an existing plan for Complainant’s future use by an insider.7. Complainant asserts that the domain name
<oldseminoleheightsfoundation.org> was
registered in bad faith.8. Complainant contends Respondent’s
<oldseminoleheightsfoundation.org>
domainname is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OLD SEMINOLE HEIGHTS mark.9. Complainant asserts that Florida Unfair Competition laws apply to this case.B. Respondent1. Complainant does not have rights in any trademark or service mark which theRespondent is allegedly using.2. Complainant’s name is not “Old Seminole Heights”, and it has never been, and is notcurrently known by, the name “Old Seminole Heights”.3. Complainant does not allege a registered mark in the term “Old Seminole Heights”.4. Complainant has failed to meet its burden to prove secondary meaning.5. Complainant is claiming a mark solely in the geographic descriptor. “Old SeminoleHeights” is a geographic term that has not acquired secondary meaning in favor of theComplainant.6. Complainant’s activities are in furtherance of promoting Old Seminole Heights asneighborhood, not in identifying Complainant as brand product.7. Complainant has failed to previously assert its alleged rights against other entitiesutilizing the term “Old Seminole Heights”… since it did not have a trademark to protect.
 
8. Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it filed, previous to any action by the Complainant, a fictitious name registration of “OldSeminole Heights Foundation” with the state of Florida.9. Previous to the complaint being filed, Respondent has made demonstrable preparationsto use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering by establishing bank accounts, books, and taking in funds.10. Complainant has made no showing that Respondent intends to mislead or divert anyof Complainant’s consumers (its members) or to tarnish any trademark of theComplainant.11. Complainant has not made any allegation as to whether there are circumstancesindicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration tothe 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.12. Complainant has not made any allegation as to whether Respondent has registeredthe domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark fromreflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent hasengaged in a pattern of such conduct.13. Complainant makes no showing of proof that its business has been disrupted or interrupted by Respondent.14. Complainant has not alleged any pattern of conduct by Respondent to prevent the useof a name by the holder of a protected mark.15. As regards the alleged confusion with Complainant, such confusion —to the extentthere was any— was not caused by the domain name in question.16. Respondent asserts that the complaint was brought in bad faith, as an attempt byComplainant to reverse domain name hijack and to harass the domain name holder, andtherefore constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Non-UDRP Legal Arguments
Complainant argues various legal points pursuant to Florida and Federal Law as they mayapply to the likelihood of consumer confusion, secondary meaning of a mark, tradename protection within the territorial scope of the business, and unfair competition. WhilePolicy ¶ 4(k) allows the parties to litigate these points in court, the Panel finds that thesearguments are not applicable to this arbitration proceeding since the instant dispute isgoverned by the UDRP and not by Florida and Federal Law.
See Abbott Labs. v. Patel 
,FA 740337 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 15, 2006) (holding that assertions of trademark infringement are “entirely misplaced and totally inappropriate for resolution” in a domainname dispute proceeding because the UDRP Policy applies only to abusivecybersquatting and nothing else).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the“Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...