Associazione Costruttori Italiani Macchine per l'Industria v. PNMI

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

A.C.I.M.G.A.

v. PNMI

Case No.

D2001-0542

1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainant

is A.C.I.M.G.A. (the Associazione Costruttori Italiani Macchine per l’Industria

Grafica, Cartotecnica, Cartaria, di Trasformazione e Affini), an association

of companies with its business office in Corso Sempione 4, 20154 Milan,

Italy.

1.2 The Respondent is

PNMI, a U.S. corporation with its place of business at 1030, East Lafayette

Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and

Registrar

2.1 The domain name

upon which this Complaint is based is <converflex.com>. The registrar

of the domain name as at the date of the Complaint is Network Solutions, Inc

("NSI").

3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was

made pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy approved

by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN")

on October 24, 1999 (the "Policy"), in accordance with the Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, also approved by ICANN on October

24, 1999 (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in effect as of December 1, 1999

(the "Supplemental Rules").

3.2 The Complaint was

received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center")

by email on April 13, 2001, and in hard copy on April 19, 2001. The fees prescribed

under the Supplemental Rules have been paid by the Complainant. The Complaint

states that a copy of the Complaint together with the cover sheet as prescribed

by the Supplemental Rules has been sent to the Respondent and that a copy of

the Complaint has been sent to the Registrar of the domain name in dispute,

NSI.

3.3 On April 18, 2001,

the Center sent the Complainant’s representative an Acknowledgment of Receipt

of Complaint.

3.4 On April 19, 2001,

the Center received from the Complainant’s representative a request to amend

the Complaint, stating that in every relevant part of the Complaint the domain

name in dispute should be considered as <converflex.com> rather than <coverflex.com>.

3.5 The Center sent

a Request for Registrar Verification to NSI on April 23, 2001, by email. NSI

responded to the Center’s request by email on April 25, 2001, stating:

(a) that NSI was the

registrar for the domain name in dispute;

(b) that the Respondent

was the current registrant of the domain name in dispute;

(c) that the domain

name <converflex.com> was active;

(d) the Respondent’s

contact details; and

(e) that Network Solutions’

5.0 Service Agreement was in effect.

3.6 The Panel notes

that NSI’s response to the Center’s Request for Registrar Verification did not

state that NSI was in receipt of a copy of the Complaint, despite the Center

asking NSI to confirm whether this was the case in its Request for Registrar

Verification. The Complaint states, at paragraph 18: "A copy of this Complaint

has been sent to the concerned registrar on April 13, 2001, by E-mail (without

enclosures) and postal-mail (with enclosures).".

3.7 In the absence of

any relevant evidence, the Panel is of the view that the fact that NSI’s response

to the Center’s Request for Registrar Verification did not state that NSI was

in receipt of a copy of the Complaint was probably an oversight on the part

of the individual at NSI who responded to the Center’s Request for Registrar

Verification. In the Panel’s experience, if at the time of receiving the Center’s

Request for Registrar Verification a registrar has not received a copy of the

Complaint in accordance with the Rules, the registrar states this in its response.

The Panel has no reason to doubt the Complainant’s assertion in paragraph 18

of the Complaint that a copy of the Complaint was sent to NSI on April 13, 2001.

In any event, the Panel is satisfied that no unfairness has resulted to the

Respondent by the fact that NSI did not state in its response whether or not

it was in receipt of a copy of the Complaint at the time it received the Center’s

Request for Registrar Verification.

3.8 The Center sent

the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding

on April 30, 2001, to the Respondent by post/courier (with enclosures), by facsimile

(without attachments) and by email (without attachments), and to the Complainant’s

representative by email (without attachments).

3.9 On May 19, 2001,

the Center received from the Respondent’s representative a request for an extension

of time to file a Response. On May 21, 2001, the Center informed the Complainant’s

representative and the Respondent’s representative that the Center granted an

extension of 10 days to the Respondent and that the last day for submitting

the Response to the Complainant and to the Center was May 29, 2001.

3.10 On May 29, 2001,

the Center received from the Complainant’s representative an email it had received

from the Respondent’s attorneys and the Complainant’s representative’s response

to this email. The email from the Respondent’s attorneys stated that:

"We do not believe

your Complaint has any merit because Respondent has intentions to use the domain

name for a website which is totally outside the field of your trademark. However,

we have been instructed to negotiate a proposal from your company to purchase

the domain name."

In its reply to the

above email, the Complainant’s representative stated:

"We assume that the

consideration money requested for the above sale should not be higher than the

amount of the registration fees and we confirm that our client would be willing

to close the question under these conditions."

3.11 The Center received

a Response from the Respondent’s representative by email on May 30, 2001, and

in hard copy on May 31, 2001.

3.12 The Center sent

a Transmission of Case File to Administrative Panel by email on June 11, 2001.

The documentation was received in hard copy by the Panel on June 15, 2001 in

Sydney, Australia.

3.13 All other procedural

requirements appear to have been satisfied.

4. Factual Background

4.1 Activities of

the Complainant

The following information

is asserted as fact in the Complaint.

The A.C.I.M.G.A. Association,

established in 1947, represents the major Italian Manufacturers of Machinery

for the Graphics, Paper and Cardboard Processing, and Converting Industry.

4.2 The Complainant’s

trademarks

The following information

is asserted as fact in the Complaint.

The Complainant is the

owner of the trademark CONVERFLEX, registered and used in Italy since the 1970s

and in several other countries since the 1990s. Annexed to the Complaint are

copies of several Italian (translated into English), International (translated

into English), United Kingdom and United States trademark registrations for

CONVERFLEX. The Complaint states that the trademark CONVERFLEX should therefore

be considered as well-known in the field of international exhibitions of materials

and machinery for converting.

4.3 Activities of

the Respondent

No information as to the

activities of the Respondent is asserted in the Response except that the Respondent

is developing a website for the domain name <converflex.com> which does

not relate to the goods and services which are described in the trademark of

Complainant.

However, the Panel has

noted the following information on the Respondent’s website at <www.pnmi.com>:

"Paragon New Media,

Inc, based in Tallahassee, Florida specializes in Secure Online Registration

Systems for trade shows, conferences and associations, as well as event related

websites and CD-ROM production.

Producing more than 40

Online Registration Systems, Websites and CD-ROMs each year makes Paragon one

of the industry's most productive vendors to the event management industry."

5. The Complainant’s

contentions in the Complaint

5.1 The Complaint asserts

that each of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been

satisfied.

5.2 In reference to

the element in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complaint asserts that the

domain name in dispute is identical to the Complainant’s CONVERFLEX trademarks,

since:

i) the Complainant’s

trademark CONVERFLEX is an arbitrary denomination having a very high degree

of distinctiveness;

ii) the registered trademark

CONVERFLEX of the Complainant is identical to the domain name <converflex.com>

of the Respondent, registered in 2000, since the addition of the top-level domain

".com" is of no relevance in this regard;

iii) even if the Respondent

had chosen the domain name regardless of the Complainant’s trademark rights,

<converflex.com> is in apparent and direct conflict with the Complainant’s

prior rights in the registered trademark CONVERFLEX; and

iv) the domain name

<converflex.com> is therefore likely to create confusion among Internet

consumers and achieve its purpose of being a business identifier.

5.3 In reference to

the element in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complaint asserts that

the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests

in respect of the disputed domain name because:

i) the Complainant is

the sole and exclusive owner of the trademark CONVERFLEX; and

ii) there is no relation

between the Complainant and the Respondent and the latter is not a licensee

of the former, nor has the Respondent obtained an authorization to use the Complainant’s

trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the said trademark.

5.4 In reference to

the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complaint asserts

that the domain name should be considered as having been registered and used

in bad faith because:

i) it is very likely

that when the domain name was registered the Respondent knew or at least should

have known of the existence of the Complainant’s rights in the highly distinctive

and widely protected trademark CONVERFLEX;

ii) since the domain

name was registered, the Respondent never used it as the Internet address of

a website; and

iii) the Respondent

does not seem to be interested in using the domain name, while the Complainant

is prevented from using one of its most popular trademarks, namely CONVERFLEX,

under the most popular top level domain, namely ".com".

6. The Respondent’s

contentions in the Response.

6.1 In relation to the

allegation that the domain name in dispute is identical to the Complainant’s

CONVERFLEX trademarks, the Respondent agrees that the domain name is similar

to a trademark of Complainant but states that there are many trademarks which

are similar to the trademark of Complainant. The Respondent annexes to the Response

an exhibit listing a number of trademarks which it considers similar to the

Complainant’s CONVERFLEX trademark.

6.2 In relation to the

allegation that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect

of the domain name, the Response denies this allegation and states that the

Respondent is developing a website for the domain name <converflex.com>

which does not relate to the goods and services which are described in the trademark

of the Complainant. The Response states that the Complainant’s trademarks relate

solely to the paper, paper converting, packaging, publishing and printing industries,

and the Respondent does not have the intention of developing a website in this

field.

6.3 In relation to the

allegation that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad

faith by the Respondent, the Response denies this allegation and states that

the Respondent is presently developing a website in the fitness and health industry.

The Respondent denies that the disputed domain name was registered for any of

the reasons or purposes set out in paragraph 4(b)(i) to (iv) of the Policy.

7. Discussion and Panel

Findings

7.1 This section

is structured by reference to the elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy. In order to be successful, the Complainant has the burden of proving,

on the balance of probabilities, that all three elements are present.

7.2 Domain Name identical

or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark

The domain name in dispute

is <converflex.com>. The Complainant has Italian, International, United

Kingdom and United States trademark registrations of the word "CONVERFLEX".

Therefore, the only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s

"CONVERFLEX" trademarks is the gTLD suffix forming part of the domain

name.

This and other Panels have

consistently held that the ".com" gTLD suffix does not have a relevant

distinguishing function in determining whether domain names are identical or

confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name.

The Panel finds that the

Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

7.3 The Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name

The Complaint asserts that

the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain

name. As stated above, the Respondent denies this allegation and states that

the Respondent is developing a website for the domain name <converflex.com>

which does not relate to the goods and services associated with the Complainant

or its CONVERFLEX trademarks.

It is clear to the Panel

that the Complainant owns the CONVERFLEX trademarks discussed above, and both

the Complainant and the Respondent admit that there is no relationship between

them. The question before the Panel is therefore whether, notwithstanding the

ownership of the CONVERFLEX trademarks by the Complainant, the Respondent does

have legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy

lists a number of circumstances which, if proven to exist by the Respondent,

can be taken to demonstrate a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in

a disputed domain name. The Respondent alleges in the Response that it does

have legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that it believed

it had the right to use the name and began to use the name before any notice

of the dispute by the Complainant.

The Respondent has not

put before the Panel any evidence of its use of or preparation to use the disputed

domain name, but has merely stated in the Response that it is currently developing

a website in the fitness and health industry. Nevertheless, given the nature

of the Respondent’s business activities as outlined on its website <www.pnmi.com>,

which the Panel has viewed, the Panel infers that it is entirely possible that

the Respondent is using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection

with a bona fide offering of goods or services, namely, its website production

services.

There is insufficient evidence

before the Panel to enable the Panel to determine with certainty whether the

Respondent does or does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed

domain name. The Panel notes that under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the burden

of proof in respect of showing that each of the three elements of paragraph

4(a) of the Policy are present rests with the Complainant. Similarly, the Respondent

has the burden of showing that paragraph 4(c) applies.

Although the Respondent

has not demonstrated that paragraph 4(c) applies, the Complainant nevertheless

must prove, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has

no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In the Panel’s view the

Complainant has not discharged that burden and has therefore not proven paragraph

4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

7.4 Domain Name has

been registered and is being used in bad faith

The Panel notes that paragraph

4(b) of the Policy states:

"For the purposes of Paragraph

4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation,

if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and

use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating

that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name 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 your

documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have 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 you have

engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered

the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;

or

(iv) by using the domain

name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet

users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of

confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation,

or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your

website or location."

In order to show that the

Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith, the Complainant has alleged:

first, that it is likely that when the Respondent registered the domain name

it knew or should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s rights in

the highly distinctive and widely protected CONVERFLEX trademark and, secondly,

that the Respondent has never used the domain name as the Internet address of

a website, and does not seem to be interested in using the domain name. The

Complaint also states that the Complainant is prevented from using one of its

most popular trademarks, CONVERFLEX, under the ".com" gTLD.

Therefore, the Complainant

appears to suggest that the circumstances outlined in paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and/or

(ii) are applicable in this dispute: namely, that the Respondent has registered

the domain name either to attract Internet users to its website by creating

a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,

affiliation, or endorsement of its website; or that it has registered the domain

name in order to prevent the Complainant as the owner of the corresponding trademark

from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.

The Panel notes that the

Complainant’s representative provided to the Center on May 29, 2001 correspondence

it had received from the Respondent’s representative in which the Respondent’s

representative stated that it had been instructed to negotiate a proposal from

the Complainant to purchase the domain name. However, the Complainant has not

asserted that the Respondent has attempted to sell the disputed domain name

to the Complainant for an amount greater than the out-of-pocket expenses directly

related to registering the domain name.

The Complainant has put

no evidence whatsoever before the Panel to substantiate the two inferred allegations

discussed above as to the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain

name by the Respondent. At present, although NSI has confirmed that the domain

name <converflex.com> is active, this domain name does not resolve to

an active website.

The Complainant therefore

has not proven that the Respondent is attempting to create for commercial gain

a likelihood of confusion between any website corresponding to the disputed

domain name and the Complainant’s CONVERFLEX trademarks, nor that the Respondent

wishes to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its CONVERFLEX trademarks

in a corresponding domain name (and in any event there is no evidence before

the Panel that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct as required

by paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy).

Accordingly the Complainant

has also failed to prove paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

8. Decision

8.1 The Complainant

having failed to prove the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the

Policy, the Complaint is dismissed.

Philip N.

Argy

Sole Panelist

Dated: June

20, 2001