Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
WIPO CASE Flourdaniels.com D2010 0375

WIPO CASE Flourdaniels.com D2010 0375

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19|Likes:

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: LEX-57 the lex engine on Dec 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/09/2010

pdf

text

original

 
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISIONFluor Corporation v. CK Ventures Inc.Case No. D2010-0375
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Fluor Corporation of Irving, Texas, United States of America,represented by Melbourne IT DBS Inc., United States of America.The Respondent is CK Ventures Inc. of Christ Church, Barbados, represented byESQwire.com Law Firm, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <flourdaniels.com> is registered with Nameview Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”)on March 12, 2010. On March 12, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to NameviewInc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. OnMarch 23, 2010, Nameview Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verificationresponse disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain namewhich differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 25, 2010 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and invitingthe Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed anamended Complaint on March 30, 2010. The Center verified that the amended Complaintsatisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionPolicy (the ”Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 theRespondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2010. Inaccordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 19, 2010.The Response was filed with the Center on April 20, 2010.The Center appointed Jon Lang as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2010. ThePanel 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, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant evolved from a construction company founded in 1912. It is the largestU.S. based publicly-traded engineering, procurement, construction, maintenance services,and project management company. It is a FORTUNE 150 company that is ranked No. 1in
 FORTUNE 
magazine's ‘‘Engineering, Construction'' category of America's largestcorporations, and is considered one of the world's safest contractors. Fluor Corporationhas a global workforce of over 40,000 with a presence in more than 60 countries on 6continents, including a subsidiary organised under the laws of Barbados where theRespondent is located. The Complainant has been involved in some of the largest projectsin the world.The Complainant is the owner of the word mark FLUOR DANIEL registered on June 5,2001 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with registrationnumber 2,456,881 and Community Trademark FLUOR DANIEL, registered on January15, 2001 with registration number 001408863. The Complainant is also the owner of theFLUOR mark, registered on June 15, 1954 at the USPTO under number 0591442.The domain name used by the Complainant for its home website,“www.fluordaniels.com” has been registered since August 30, 2000 (and<fluordaniel.com>, another domain name of the Complainant, has been registered sinceFebruary 1, 1996).The Complainant sent “cease and desist” letters to the Respondent (to no avail) onJanuary 19, 2010 and January 26, 2010 informing the Respondent that it was infringingthe Complainant's IP rights.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant says that it has established rights in the registered trademark “FLUOR DANIEL” and that the Respondent's domain name, <flourdaniels.com> is confusingly
 
similar to Complainant's mark, the only difference between the two being the swappingof the letter “u” with the letter “o”, and the addition of the letter “s”.A Google search for “Flour Daniels” yields at least 1,570,000 hits. The first result listedis the Complainant's site, “www.fluor.com”. Other results reference pages within theFLUOR.COM site, including careers in the company, press releases and investor information on the FLUOR CORPORATION. The Complainant asserts that thisestablishes that the Respondent's domain name is virtually identical to Complainant'strade name and confusingly similar to its registered trademarks.The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests inthe domain name. It goes on to say that there is no evidence that the Respondent ownsregistrations for any trademarks containing the terms “Flour Daniels” or “Flour Daniel”,that the term, “Flour Daniels” does not serve as the Respondent's trade name or businessidentity, and that the Respondent does not provide goods or services that are identified or described by these or similar terms.The website associated with the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is a parked website providing links to some of the Complainant's competitors, inactive sitesor sites created by the Respondent in violation of the Complainant's advertisingguidelines, trademark licenses, and business relationships. The Complainant goes on tostate that the Respondent is neither a licensee nor an authorized representative/ partner of Fluor Corporation.The Respondent is not using the website in connection with any
bona fide
offering of goods or services but rather has chosen a domain name based on a registered trademark in order to generate traffic to a web site and thereby generate income.The Complainant alleges that the domain name was registered and is being used in badfaith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, <flourdaniels.com> onJanuary 10, 2002. The brand FLUOR DANIEL has been a registered US trademark since2001 with first use noted as January 1, 1998. In addition, the home site of theComplainant for this brand, FLUORDANIELS.COM, has been registered since August30, 2000 and FLUORDANIEL.COM has been registered (by the Complainant) sinceFebruary 1, 1996. The Complainant has received press all over the world and has asubsidiary office located in Barbados. In the Complainant's view, the Respondent isunable to claim that it was unaware of the existence of Complainant and its trademark.The Complainant also says that the Respondent's bad faith is further shown by it usingthe website to which its domain name resolves as a “click-through” website, generatingrevenue by providing links to other construction, engineering, procurement and jobrelated websites thereby taking advantage of the Complainant's well known mark toachieve a wrongful competitive advantage and commercial gain.Moreover, and further indicative of bad faith, the Respondent has included a link on thesite which states, “To purchase this domain name, click here”. When clicked, the page is

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->