FreedomCard, Inc. v. eNIC.net

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

FreedomCard, Inc. v. Mr. Taeho Kim

Case No. D2001-1320

1. The Parties

The Complainant is FreedomCard, Inc., of 4720 Lincoln Blvd Suite 354, Marina

del Rey, California 90292, United States of America, represented by James Y.

Rayis, Esq., of Meadows, Ichter and Trigg, of Atlanta, Georgia, United States

of America.

The Respondent is Mr. Taeho Kim, of 101-1213 doklimjeilpark, 284 wolsan 3 dong,

namku kwangju, kwangju 503233, Korea, represented by Zak Muscovitch, Esq., of

Neinstein & Associates of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is <freedomcard.com>.

The Registrar is Hangyang Systems, Inc., dba doregi.com, of Seoul, Korea.

3. Procedural History

This is an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute

Resolution Policy ("the Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation

for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999, the Rules

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

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

Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules") of the WIPO

Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center").

The Complaint was received in hard copy on November 6, 2001, and by email on

November 13, 2001. It named as Respondent eNIC.net and as Registrar Domaindiscover.com

of San Diego, California, United States of America.

The Complaint was acknowledged on November 9, 2001, and on November 16,

2001, the Center sought registration details from Domaindiscover.com. On November 19, 2001,

Domaindiscover.com confirmed that the disputed domain name was registered in

the name of eNIC.net; that the Administrative and Billing Contact is "000sex.com

Taeho Kim"; that the language of the Registration Agreement is English;

that the Policy applies to the disputed domain name, the status of which is

"active" and that "they have submitted the Registration Agreement

to the jurisdiction at the location of the principal office of the Registrar".

On November 19, 2001, the Center received an email from Mr. Kim Taeho saying

he is the Respondent and that, being Korean and unfamiliar with the English

language, he would use Korean as the official language in this case. He asked

the Center to let him know "if you’re Okay". Mr. Rayis objected on

behalf of the Complainant. On November 20, 2001, the Center informed Mr. Kim

Taeho that pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, the language of the proceeding

shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, in this case English.

Based on the information provided by Domaindiscover.com, the Center satisfied

itself on November 22, 2001, that the Complaint complied with all formal requirements

(including payment of the prescribed fee) and that day formally dispatched copies

of the Complaint by post/courier (with enclosures) to eNIC.net at the address

mentioned above and by facsimile and email (without attachments). The Center

included with that material a letter dated November 22, 2001, containing notification

of the commencement of this administrative proceeding, with copies (of the Complaint

without attachments) to the Complainant, the Registrar and ICANN.

On November 22, 2001, in response to the Center’s emailed notification of the

commencement of this proceeding, Mr. Kim Taeho informed the Center that the

disputed domain name was registered at doregi.com in Korea, so he "will

proceed this case with Korean language". The Center repeated its message

of November 20, 2001.

The last day specified by the Center for a Response was December 12, 2001.

On December 11, 2001, a Response was filed on behalf of Mr. Kim Taeho by email

and on December 17, 2001, in hard copy. Receipt was acknowledged by the Center

on December 12, 2001.

On December 13, 2001, Mr. Rayis, on behalf of the Complainant, submitted that

because there was no Response from the named Respondent, eNIC.net, which was

the "domain owner", the Panel should determine the dispute based solely

upon the Complaint. Mr. Muscovitch responded with excerpted Whois information

indicating that Mr. Taeho Kim is the registrant of the disputed domain name.

These exchanges, and others on this issue, were forwarded to the Administrative

Panel ("the Panel") by the Center.

The Complainant had elected to have the case decided by a single-member Panel

and on December 21, 2001, the Center notified the parties of the appointment

of Alan L. Limbury as panelist, Mr. Limbury having submitted a Statement

of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence. That day the

Center transmitted the case file to the Panel and notified the parties of the

projected decision date of January 4, 2001.

At the behest of the Panel, the Center made further enquiries of the two registrars,

which revealed that on November 16, 2001, (after the filing of the Complaint

and before formal commencement of the proceeding) there had been a change of

registrar from Domaindiscover.com to Hangyang Systems, Inc., dba doregi.com,

and a change of Registrant from eNIC.net to Mr. Taeho Kim; that the language

of the Registration Agreement with doregi.com is Korean and that the current

status of the disputed domain name is "Registrar-Lock".

Under these circumstances the Panel issued a procedural order directing the

Complainant (i) by January 14, 2002, to amend the Complaint so as to name Mr. Taeho Kim

as Respondent and Hangyang Systems as the Registrar; (ii) to confirm the selection

of mutual jurisdiction and (iii) formally to deliver a copy of the Complaint,

with amendments, to the new Registrar. The Panel extended until January 21,

2002, the time for issuing its decision in this proceeding.

An amended Complaint dated January 14, 2002, was filed with the Center on January 14,

2002, together with an email indicating the other aspects of the Procedural

Order were being complied with.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complaint, as filed, was in accordance with

the requirements of the Rules and Supplemental Rules; payment was properly made;

the Panel agrees with the Center’s assessment concerning the Complaint’s compliance

with the formal requirements; the Center discharged its responsibility under

paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to employ reasonably available means calculated

to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the respondent named in the Complaint

as filed; a Response was filed on behalf of Mr. Taeho Kim within the time specified

in the Rules; the Complaint was duly amended to take into account the change

in Registrar and the change in registrant which occurred after the filing of

the Complaint and before the formal commencement of this proceeding; the new

Registrar has been formally served with a copy of the Complaint and amendments

thereto and has placed the disputed domain name on "Registrar-Lock"

. The Panel was properly constituted.

The language of the proceedings was English, being the language in which all

submissions were filed.

4. Factual Background

On April 20, 1999, a California company called Urban Television Network, Inc.

("UTN") applied to register FREEDOMCARD as a trademark in the United States of America.

The President of Complainant, Mr. Wesley Buford, who is also President of UTN,

asserts that UTN is the Complainant’s predecessor in interest as regards ownership

of that mark and that the mark has been used by UTN and, subsequently, by the

Complainant, since February 1996. Respondent notes that UTN remains the recorded

registrant.

The business conducted by Complainant is not entirely clear from the Complaint.

The services with respect to which the mark is registered are:

"Insurance and financial services, namely credit card services, banking

services, financial management, investment brokerage services; and financial

analysis and consulting services".

The Complainant’s website at <freedomcardusa.com> invites Internauts

to apply for FreedomCard and includes the statement:

"The FreedomCard Gold MasterCard is marketed by FreedomCard, Inc."

Respondent is a Korean web designer. He registered the disputed domain name

in the name eNIC.net on February 22, 2001. The domain name was hot-linked to

a website posting offers to sell domain names and advertising web businesses

such as pornography and gambling sites. In response to an email message through

that website dated October 25, 2001:"Are you offering this name for

sale?" from Mr. Rayis (who did not then disclose that he represents

Complainant), Respondent replied:

"Thanks for your offer.

We purchased the domain for our developing website at first.

Unfortunately, the domain is on the negotiation with other buyer from us.

The price range is $20,000us.

Sorry for saying this.

If you can be affordable over $20,000us, let me know immediately."

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the Panel to direct that <freedomcard.com> be

transferred to Complainant or alternatively cancelled and it invokes the following

legal grounds as the basis of the relief sought:

Identity/confusing similarity

The disputed domain name is identical to the word mark FreedomCard registered

to Urban Television Network, Inc, the predecessor in the trademark ownership

interest to the Complainant. The words are identical with only the .com added.

Illegitimacy

Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name for sale and using

the site as a hotlink to <register.bestsrs.com>, which offers domain names

for sale and posts advertisements to other sites, including Internet pornography

sites and gambling. USPTO results show Complainant has ownership of all but

two of the twelve live marks for "freedom card" (two words) filed.

Neither of the other two applicants or owners include Respondent. The marks

owned by Complainant have been registered since April 1998, with prior use in

commerce since February 1996. Complainant and its predecessor to the trademarks,

UTV, have been using the name "FreedomCard" without interruption since

1996. Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until February 2001.

Bad faith

Since registering the disputed domain name, Respondent has failed to make any

commercial use of the site for any purpose other than as a hotlink to another

Internet domain address posting offers to sell domain names and to advertise

web businesses such as pornography and gambling sites.

Policy 4(b)(i)

When Complainant’s representative inquired over the freedomcard website as

to purchasing the address <freedomcard.com>, Respondent sent a response

asking for $20,000US for the domain site and asking, "if you can be affordable

over $20,000US, let me know immediately." (Sic.).

While the e-mail contains the bare and unsupported conclusory assertion that

the domain name was purchased to develop a site,

- there is no evidence that this is true,

- Respondent was on notice of the U.S. trademark registrations and filing held

by Complainant at the time of the registration,

- the request for an extremely high dollar amount ($20,000US) for the sale

indicates an intent to profit from sale to the legitimate FreedomCard trademark

owners, and

- the offer of a sale on the website, of not only this but other domain names,

indicates profiteering from the sale of domain names for which Respondent has

no legitimate interest.

Policy 4(b)(iv)

Respondent has not only appropriated a confusingly similar mark, it has also

infringed on Complainant’s identical trademark name and appropriated the website

for such name. When calling the website, a user is sent to a different website

offering domain names for sale and posting (presumably with paid banners to

Respondent) advertisements of other web businesses including pornography and

gambling sites.

B. The Respondent

Complainant is acting on the mistaken belief that the Policy enables Complainant

to obtain Respondent’s domain name in the absence of all of the requirements

pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Policy.

The fact is that no bad faith exists in this case. Likewise, Respondent

has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. It is generic. Numerous

companies use the name, "freedom card’ all over the world for a variety

of services and most of them have used the mark, "freedom card" long

before Complainant started using it. Complainant’s entire case rests on the

fact that the disputed domain name is identical or similar to its registered

trademark.

Complainant has resorted to these proceedings because it is cheaper than buying

the name from the lawful registrant.

Complainant must prove each of the three requirements under Paragraph 4 of

the Policy: Easyjet Airline Company v. Steggles (WIPO

Case No. D2000-0024).

Respondent concedes that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s

registered trademark, assuming that Complainant is in fact the successor in

title to the recorded registrant, UTN. No actual evidence has been filed to

demonstrate that the USPTO registry is inaccurate or out of date. UTN remains

the recorded registrant of several trademarks for the mark, FREEDOM CARD.

There is no record of a company called Freedom Card Inc.

Similarity to a registered trademark however, is only the beginning of the

inquiry required pursuant to the Policy. Furthermore, several important points

must be made in the context of legitimate interest, as understood by

the Policy.

Legitimate Interest

The disputed domain name is composed of two common English words. It is a generic

domain name that is capable of a multitude of applications. The words, "FREEDOM"

and "CARD" generally connote a card of some kind that provides the

user with flexibility.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name because he knew that it was

generic and was capable of so many commercial applications. Respondent, a Korean

web designer by profession, registered it with the intent of either developing

a web site and on-line service that enables users to pay for a variety of web-based

services using a single online membership card or selling the domain

name to a company or person who wished to use the domain name in connection

with its business.

The disputed domain name was certainly not registered with the Complainant

in mind, or any specific company in mind. Respondent knew that there were hundreds

of companies who might be interested in the domain name if he was unable to

develop the service himself.

Due to the well-known failure of the Internet and information technology markets

and Respondent’s own lack of time, the web site and service originally intended

by Respondent was never developed. To date, Respondent has maintained the domain

name and has not solicited its sale to any party, especially Complainant [1].

At no time did Respondent ever solicit the sale of the name to Complainant.

Respondent had never even heard of Complainant. Complainant’s mark is not

known world-wide.

As Complainant concedes, at least two other companies in the United States

alone, use the mark "FREEDOM CARD", pursuant to United States registered

trademarks, for goods and services entirely unrelated to Complainant. In fact,

these registrations pre-date Complainant’s registration. This proves that the

disputed domain name is appropriately used by persons other than Complainant,

without any trademark infringement.

Furthermore, numerous companies have used the mark "FREEDOM CARD"

for a variety of goods and services pursuant to United States registered trademarks

which have since expired. This too demonstrates that the mark "FREEDOM

CARD" is a common combination of two English words used by a variety of

businesses.

Complainant has failed to demonstrate any trademarks in Korea, where Respondent

resides. Complainant has also failed to show that it does any business in Korea.

It can hardly be said that Respondent must have had notice of Complainant’s

marks in Korea. There is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that Respondent

must have been aware of Complainant at the time that Respondent registered the

subject domain name.

So many companies use the mark "FREEDOM CARD" all over the world

that it must be considered a generic term, similar to "SMART CARD",

"CREDIT CARD", "CONVENIENCE CARD", AND "GAS CARD".

A search of Google.com, reveals 704 web sites that use the term, FREEDOM CARD

[2]. The vast majority of these entries are

in connection with goods, services, and non-commercial uses that are totally

unrelated to Complainant.

For example:

Freedom Card

a health insurance discount card [3]

Freedom Card

Nottinghamshire County Council (in England) issued smart card travel passes

for concessionary fare passengers, based on 'hands-free' Easypass cards from

Schlumberger. The new 'Freedom Card' is part of East Midlands Integrated

Ticketing (EMIT) scheme, which is designed to support scholars, and other people

entitled to concessionary travel rights such as the disabled and pensioners

[4].

Freedom Card

Freedom Cards are a series of special promotional "business" CARDS designed

to attract not only "hot" & "interested" prospects to YOUR business but

those who are "just looking" [5].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card is a unique connectivity solution ensuring that hotel

guests can always gain high speed up to 11Mbps broadband Internet access from

laptops, wherever they are in the hotel. To utilise this service, the guest

simply has to obtain a Freedom Card (PCMCIA Card) from the hotel and

insert into the laptop. Monitoring and charging for the use by individual guests

can be done centrally and can be formatted in several ways with different packages,

e.g. 24 hour unlimited access or hourly usage [6].

Freedom Card

The concept of using freedom as an argument to support one’s position, e.g.

"playing the freedom card" [7].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card has been designed to introduce you and your guests

to some of Dublin’s premier locations. These include Dining, Accommodation,

Services, Sports, and Leisure. This card has been designed so that you may enjoy

20% savings Monday to Thursday at collective locations on a daily basis [8].

(FreedomCard.ie)

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card allows callers in New Zealand to dial a toll free number

to call anywhere in the world [9].

Freedom Card

Tata Cellular, the leading cellular operator in Andhra Pradesh, has introduced

The Freedom Card-a rechargeable, prepaid card system. The new card system,

which has been developed by Tata Cellular in association with Australia-based

prepaid technology provider Total Tel, aims at making cellular telephony a fast

moving consumer services (FMCS) product [10].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card is a type of computer hardware card that enables a

computer to use multiple operating systems. It is a name suggested at WarpTech

by Bill Nicholls of Byte Magazine (in 1999). You could set up a Freedom

Card and load Windows one time, Linux the next. Or you could take a rack mount

PC and put 10 or 15 or more cards into it [11].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card:

A Shopping Card for the Next Generation. This reloadable card lets you confidently

send your teen or pre-teen out shopping -- with a spending limit [12].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card is a quick reference guide to your rights and obligations

when you are stopped by the police [13].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card is a card used in an educational game about slavery

[14].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card is a consumer card designed by the Goodyear company

[15].

Freedom Card

The Freedom Card is a conceptual universal health care card

[16].

Where a domain name is generic, the first person to register it in good faith

is entitled to the domain name. This is considered a "legitimate interest".

Pursuant to CRS Technology Corporation v. CondeNet (Concierge.com) (NAF

Case No: FA0002000093547) [17]:

…Even though the trademark and the name are all but identical, the Panel has

determined that the first person or entity to register the domain name should

prevail in circumstances such as these where the domain name is a generic word,

here indicating a provider of services, and where that word is widely used as

a trade or service mark, although almost always in connection with modifiers

or qualifiers.

Generic and descriptive words and phrases will generally not be transferred

to a Complainant just because a Complainant has a registered trademark. Pursuant

to Coming Attractions v.ComingAttractions.com, (NAF Case No. FA0003000094341)

[18]:

Respondent’s registered domain name, comingattractions.com, is facially identical

to and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMING ATTRACTIONS trademark.

However, Complainant’s trademark applies specifically to apparel and there is

no evidence that Respondent ever used or intended to use the subject domain,

comingattractions.com in any way related to apparel. There is no indication

that Respondent has intended to attract Internet users to its web site or other

on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark

as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site.

The term "coming attractions" is a generic term in the field of entertainment

and its widespread use predated Complainant’s trademark registration. Thus,

Respondent had the right to register the subject domain name, comingattractions.com

and the domain registration is a fair use of a generic term that was available

for registration in the form of the subject domain name without disparagement

of, or impact upon, Complainant’s trademark rights.

There are no circumstances that indicate the domain name was acquired primarily

for the purpose of transferring it to the Complainant or to prevent Complainant

from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name, or that Respondent

has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Since there is no indication that

Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting

the business of a competitor, Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent

registered the domain name "comingattractions.com" in bad faith.

In Canned Foods, Inc. v Ult. Search Inc. (NAF Case No. FA0012000096320)

the Panel explained:

Where the domain name is a generic term, it is difficult to conclude

that there is a deliberate attempt to confuse. It is precisely because generic

words are incapable of distinguishing one provider from another that trademark

protection is denied them. There are dozens of other enterprises that use the

term "Grocery Outlet," therefore one cannot conclude that Complainant must necessarily

be the special target. [19]

Respondent states that he has a legitimate interest in selling the subject

generic domain name which he registered in good faith.

Even if selling the name is not considered to be a "legitimate interest",

Respondent requests that the Panel follow the analogous decision of VZ VermögensZentrum

AG v. Anything.com, (WIPO Case No. D2000-0527)

[20]. In this decision, the subject domain name was not

transferred and it was determined that:

…..even if the Domain Name was registered as one of a list of generic names

in the hope of being able to sell it, the Complainant’s mark is not known worldwide

and there is no evidence that the Respondent was or should have been aware of

the Complainant’s mark upon registration of the Domain Name, or even that its

aim was to sell it to the Complainant at a later date.

At no time did Respondent ever solicit the sale of the name to Complainant.

Respondent had never even heard of Complainant.

Respondent states that he has a legitimate interest in selling or keeping the

subject domain name for future development.

No Bad Faith

Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Complainant must prove BOTH

"bad faith registration" and "bad faith use".

It is submitted that without proving "bad faith registration", Complainant

cannot succeed. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Complainant registered

the domain name with Complainant in mind. This is required to show that Respondent

registered the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Coming Attractions,

supra.:

There are no circumstances that indicate the domain name was acquired primarily

for the purpose of transferring it to the Complainant or to prevent Complainant

from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name, or that Respondent

has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Since there is no indication that

Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting

the business of a competitor, Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent

registered the domain name "comingattractions.com" in bad faith.

Because Complainant has no evidence of Respondent registering the domain name

with Complainant in mind, it attempts to infer bad faith. For example,

Complainant accuses Respondent of "passive holding of the domain name",

even though Respondent only registered the domain name nine (9) months prior

to the commencement of this proceeding.

Complainant fails to demonstrate passive holding as understood by the Policy

in this respect, because of the very short time period that Respondent owned

the disputed domain name. See, for example, Mondich and American. Vintage

Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, (WIPO Case

No. D2000-0004) [21] (finding Respondent

cannot be said to lack a bona fide intent to use the domain name when only 10

months have passed since registration); See also Casual Corner Group, Inc.

v. Young, (NAF Case No. FA0007000095112) [22]

(finding that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name

even though he has made no use of the web site at the time of the Complaint.

Only after a two-year period of non-use is there an inference of a lack of bona

fide intent to use the name).

Complainant, remarkably, accuses Respondent of responding to Complainant’s

offer to purchase the domain name. This allegation is vexatious. The fact is

that Complainant solicited the sale from Respondent. Respondent never contacted

Complainant. Furthermore, Complainant never relied on any purported trademark

rights when seeking the purchase of the domain name. Extraordinarily, Complainant

did not even identify itself when inquiring regarding the purchase of Respondent’s

domain name.

Pursuant to Nutrisystem v. Easthaven, (CPR Case No. 012)

[23], such circumstances were found to be non-demonstrative

of bad faith:

"The e-mail responds with a direct answer to a pointed question. Presumably,

Complainant is unhappy with the price placed on the sale of this intangible

asset. That, however, does not equate with bad faith in quoting the price in

the first instance, especially when the quotation was sought as in the case

here."

Complainant also accuses Respondent of registering the subject domain name

in order to prevent it from registering the domain name. The fact is that Respondent

registered the domain name in February of 2001. Complainant on the other hand,

registered its domain name, <freedomcardusa.com> on July 25, 1997.

This clearly demonstrates that Complainant had every opportunity to register

the subject domain name if it in fact wanted it. Respondent cannot be said to

have registered it in order to prevent Complainant from registering it.

Complainant accuses Respondent of intentionally attempting to attract Internet

users to a web site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion.

This argument fails because of the numerous other companies that use the mark

FREEDOM CARD all over the world. Furthermore, pursuant to the <sweetsuccess.com>

case, supra:

Once again, the Panel recognizes that the scope of Complainant's trademark

rights must be the subject of our analysis and the scope of those rights is

linked inextricably with the goods on which the mark appears. We believe that

ordinary and average consumers and those who navigate the Internet are capable

of holding in their minds separate cognitive understandings of the trademark

significance associated with Complainant's use of the term "Sweet Success" on

candy and dietary drinks and of the use of that same term as a URL by Respondent.

The scope of Complainant's trademark rights is insufficient to bar Respondent

from acquiring legitimate rights in the same term when used for a different

purpose, such as a URL.

Lastly, Complainant accuses Respondent of advertising on his web site. It is

not clear how this is indicative of bad faith. The fact is that because the

domain name is generic, Respondent is free to use the site in any manner that

does not attempt to confuse users. Respondent’s advertising is in connection

with services that Complainant has no interest in. Accordingly, this too is

not bad faith.

Complainant’s Bad Faith and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. It failed to register

a name in 1997, that it now wants. It was unsatisfied with the price of the

generic domain name that was offered to Complainant when Complainant inquired

if the name was for sale. Complainant sought to entrap Respondent by offering

to purchase the name and then using this as "evidence" against Respondent.

Complainant now seeks the domain name through legal means, without any evidence

of bad faith registration. This is a misuse of the UDRP procedure. Respondent

is not a cybersquatter.

Respondent submits that it was the price of the domain name which led to this

proceeding and not any legitimate claim of cybersquatting.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel must decide this Complaint on

the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the

Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Procedural issues

(i) "Cyberflying"

Under the Policy, which forms part of the registration agreement, a registrant

may not transfer a domain name registration to another holder - paragraph 8(a)

- or another registrar - paragraph 8(b) - during a "pending" proceeding.

Because the initiation of the proceeding precedes its formal commencement (Rules

3(a) and 4(c)) a Respondent, to whom a copy of the Complaint must be sent (Rule

3(xii)) may have an opportunity, before commencement, to transfer the domain

name to a new holder or to a new Registrar. Both situations arose in British

Broadcasting Corporation v. Data Art Corporation / Stoneybrook (WIPO

case No. D2000-0683), in which the Panel said:

"To interpret section 8(a) of the Policy in such a way as to permit transfers

of registration after notice of the complaint to the respondent but before official

commencement of the proceedings by way of notification from the provider would

not do justice to complainants who have initiated complaints in accordance with

the Policy and the Rules. Moreover such an interpretation would appear to permit,

if not encourage the phenomenon cyberflying, where a registrant of a

domain name, when named as the respondent in a domain name dispute case, systematically

transfers the domain name to a different registrant to disrupt the proceeding".

See also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake

Patrol (WIPO Case No. D2001-0489); Imperial

Chemical Industries, PLC v. Oxford University (WIPO

Case No. D2001-0292); Kabushiki Kaisha Isetan v. Stars Web International

and Isetan, Inc. (WIPO Case No. D2001-0732)

and Köstritzer Schwarzbierbrauerei v. Macros-Telekom Corp. (WIPO

Case No. D2001-0936).

In British Broadcasting Corporation v. Data Art Corporation / Stoneybrook

(WIPO case No. D2000-0683), as here,

the transferee of the domain name was an associate of the Respondent who had

knowledge of the Complaint before the transfer took place. As in that case,

the Panel holds that neither the change of registrant nor of Registrar affects

these proceedings.

(ii) Whether the Response should be taken into account

In paragraph 37 of his Response, Mr. Taeho Kim says he registered the disputed

domain name in February 2001. This accords with the date of February 22, 2001,

shown in Exhibit A to the Complaint as the date on which the record of the disputed

domain name was created with Domaindiscover.com, showing eNIC.net as registrant

and Mr. Taeho Kim as Administrative, Technical and Zone Contacts.

Further, in response to an enquiry from the Center, the new Registrar said:

"Before trasferring Registrar to doregi.com, the registrant name of

that domain name was "eNIC.net". But actually the owner of that domain name

was Taeho Kim. Because our registration system couldn't be accepted the virtual

registrant name, "Taeho Kim" was recorded in our database as the correct registrant

name." [sic]

The Panel is conscious of the potential for prejudice to a Complainant if a

transfer to a new registrant occurring after the filing of a Complaint is not

cancelled under paragraph 8(a) of the Policy. In this case the Panel formed

the view that the Complainant will suffer no prejudice as a consequence of the

transfer to Mr. Taeho Kim, because the Complainant’s case against him is

the same as its case against eNIC.net. The change is one of name only, not of

circumstances. For this reason the Panel did not ask the Center to seek cancellation

of the change in registrant. For the same reason the Panel admits the Response.

(iii) Whether the Complainant complied with Procedural Order No. 1

The amendment to the Complaint was received by the Center on January 14, 2002.

The Panel accepts the amendments to the Complaint.

Substantive issues

To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a Complainant must prove each element

of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark

or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad

faith.

Identity or confusing similarity

Respondent concedes that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s

registered trademark FREEDOMCARD, assuming that Complainant is in fact the successor

in title to the recorded registrant, UTN. The panel accepts the statement in

Mr. Buford’s sworn affidavit that the Complainant is the successor in interest

to UTN.

The Complainant has established this element.

Illegitimacy

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark nor to register

the disputed domain name. The name of Respondent is not and does not include

any part of any of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is not

being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Were

the trademark a well-known invented word having no descriptive character, these

circumstances would shift the onus to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or

legitimate interest in the disputed domain name: Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic

Web (WIPO Case No. D2000-0624) and

the cases there cited. But the mark FREEDOM CARD is a common generic expression

in which the Complainant cannot have exclusive rights.

Thus, despite Complainant’s registered trademark in relation to the particular

services which Complainant provides, Respondent has rights and a legitimate

interest in the disputed domain by virtue of having been the first to register

it: Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, (NAF Case No. FA0101000096364);

Ultrafem, Inc. v. Warren R. Royal, (NAF Case No. FA010600009768297682);

CRS Technology Corporation v. CondeNet (NAF Case No: FA0002000093547)

and Coming Attractions v.ComingAttractions.com, (NAF Case No. FA0003000094341.

The following passage from the decision in Nutrisystem.com, Inc. v. Easthaven,

Ltd. (CPR Case No. 012) is apposite here:

"…we conclude that Complainant has not demonstrated Respondent's lack

of a legitimate interest in the term "Sweet Success" when used as a domain name.

We decline Complainant's invitation to presume the absence of a legitimate interest

based solely on the fact that Complainant holds United States trademark registrations

for the same term. Once again, the Panel recognizes that the scope of

Complainant's trademark rights must be the subject of our analysis and the scope

of those rights is linked inextricably with the goods on which the mark appears.

We believe that ordinary and average consumers and those who navigate the Internet

are capable of holding in their minds separate cognitive understandings of the

trademark significance associated with Complainant's use of the term "Sweet

Success" on candy and dietary drinks and of the use of that same term as a URL

by Respondent. The scope of Complainant's trademark rights is insufficient to

bar Respondent from acquiring legitimate rights in the same term when used for

a different purpose, such as a URL":

Recognizing that anyone has a right to register common words in the language,

a legitimate interest is even established where a Respondent’s only purpose

in registering a common word domain name is for resale: Newstoday Printers

and Publishers (P) Ltd. v. InetU, Inc., (WIPO

Case No. D2001-0085); Audiopont, Inc. v. eCorp, (WIPO

Case No. D2001-0509); Kis v. Anything.com Ltd., (WIPO

Case No. D2000-0770); Allocation Network GmbH v. Steve Gregory, (WIPO

Case No. D2000-0016).

There is no evidence, and no basis for inferring, that Respondent, in Korea,

was aware, or should be deemed to have been aware, of Complainant or its U.S.

trademark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

Complainant has not established this element.

Bad faith registration and use

Respondent asserts that he registered the disputed domain name in February 2001,

knowing that it was generic and was capable of many commercial applications.

He says he registered it with the intent of either developing a web site

and on-line service that enables users to pay for a variety of web-based services

using a single online membership card or selling the domain name to a

company or person who wished to use the domain name in connection with its business.

There is no evidence Respondent was aware of Complainant or its mark when Respondent

registered the disputed domain name, nor is there evidence the mark is so well-known

as to give rise to such a presumption.

Respondent concedes that he registered the disputed domain name with the purpose

of either developing a website or selling the name. But having regard principally

to the generic nature of the domain name, to the absence of evidence that Respondent

was aware of Complainant or its mark at the time of registration and to the

fact that Respondent did not approach Complainant to solicit the sale of the

domain name, the Panel is not satisfied that sale at a profit to Complainant

or to a competitor of Complainant was the Respondent’s primary purpose in registering

the domain name. See Lumena s-ka zo.o. v. Express Ventures LTD (NAF Case

No. FA000300094375):

"It did appear that Respondent was involved in the business of registering

domain names with the intent to resell them for a profit. If the domain name

at issue were a common trademark such as IBM®, evidence of this

might well be sufficient to demonstrate a bad faith registration and use. Lumena.com,

however, involves a generic term, and there is no direct evidence that Respondent

registered the domain name with the intent of capitalizing on Complainant’s

trademark interest".

Subparagraph 4(b)(iv) requires that a Respondent intend to confuse Internauts

by reference to the Complainant’s mark. This has not been established. Nor is

there any other evidence of bad faith within paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

The Complainant has not established this element.

Reverse domain name hijacking

Rule 1 defines reverse domain name hijacking as "using the Policy in bad

faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name."

See also Rule 15(e). To prevail on such a claim, Respondent must show

either that Complainant knew of Respondent’s unassailable right or legitimate

interest in the disputed domain name or the clear lack of bad faith registration

and use, and nevertheless brought the Complaint in bad faith: Sydney Opera

House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Ltd., Case

No. D2000-1224 (WIPO, Oct. 31, 2000), and Goldline International, Inc.

v. Gold Line (WIPO Case D2000-1151)

or that the Complaint was brought in knowing disregard of the likelihood that

the Respondent possessed legitimate interests: Smart Design LLC v. Hughes,

(WIPO Case No. D2000-0993).

Here the Panel is not satisfied that the Complaint was brought in bad faith

or in knowing disregard of the Respondent’s legitimate interest in the disputed

domain name.

7. Decision

Pursuant to paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel states

that this dispute is not within the scope of the Policy. The complaint is therefore

denied.

Alan L. Limbury

Sole Panelist

Dated: January 20, 2002

Footnotes:

1. There is a reference to "Make an

Offer on a Taken Domain Name" in Complainant’s Exhibit "E". It

should be noted that this tag line is inserted by the web hosting company and

not by Respondent himself. It is a standard page-holder template.

2. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22freedom+card%22&hl=en&start=290&sa=N

3. http://www.freedomhealth.com/plans.html

4. http://www.1.slb.com/smartcards/news/pr99/first/sct-nottingham0299.html

5. http://www.freedomworx.com/card.html

6. http://www.fhrai.com/Mag-News/magVenderNews.asp

7. http://epistolary.org/rob/swatch-protest/issue.shtml

8. http://www.freedomcard.ie/main.html

9. http://callback.virtualave.net/cards.asp

10. http://www.india-today.com/ctoday/19991216/buzz3.html

11. http://www.os2ezine.com/20000616/ecommstation.html

12. http://www.thebon.com/boncard/index.asp

13. http://www.nhorml.org/norml/know_your_rights.htm

14. http://www.state.in.us/ism/sites/levicoffin/tour/antislav.pdf

15. http://www.unlikelymoose.com/logos_goodyear.html

16. http://www.apa.org/divisions/div42/members/pubs/1997_Fall/SHORE2.html

17. http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/93547.htm

18. http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/94341.htm

19. See also First American Funds,

supra. ("To construe 4(b)(iv) without a requirement of direct action by the

Respondent against the Complainant would . . . [be] inconsistent with existing

trademark principles and with the limited language and scope of the Policy".);

Lumena s-ka zo.o. v. Express Ventures LTD, (NAF Case No. FA0003000094375)

(no bad faith where domain name incorporates generic term, absent direct evidence

that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent of capitalizing on

Complainant's trademark interest); Amana Company, L.P. v. Vanilla Limited,

(WIPO Case No. D2001-0749)("Because it is not

a made-up word, "Deep Freeze" does not impinge as a distinctive mark on the

average person in the same way as a made-up brand name (e.g. Coca-Cola) or a

personal name (e.g. McDonalds.")).

20. https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0527.html

21. https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0004.html

22. http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95112.htm

23. http://www.cpradr.org/ICANNDecisionCPR012-001128.htm