Spaline.com

The timeline behind spaline.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION ARTec Systems Group Inc. v. Club Spa USA Claim Number: FA0102000096579 PARTIES The Complainant is ARTec Systems Group, Inc., Huntington, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Club Spa USA, West New York, NJ, USA ("Respondent") represented by John P. DeMaio. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is "spaline.com", registered with Network Solutions. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Roger Kerans as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on January 31, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 6, 2001. On February 2, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "spaline.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 8, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 28, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@spaline.com by e-mail. A timely response was received and determined to be complete on February 27, 2001. On March 6, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Roger Kerans as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant markets a line of beauty products and cosmetics under the brand name "SPALINE" and in that connection has a website at http://www.artecworldwide.com/spaline/index.htm. The Complainant registered the trademark "SPALINE" with the US government on July 1, 1998. The Respondent operates a website under the name of spaline.com in which competing brands of cosmetics are advertised. The Complainant says that the products available on the website are similar in nature to many of the ARTec products marked under the "SPALINE" trademark (i.e., bath and shower soaps, skin moisturizers, body lotions, skin lotions and astringents for cosmetic use). The Complainant says that there will be purchasers who may believe that they are investing in ARTec products when, in fact, they are not. It is submitted that this would dilute and tarnish the "SPALINE" mark to the detriment of ARTec. The Complainant says its "SPALINE" brand name is internationally recognized throughout the beauty/cosmetics industry, and the Complainant has expended considerable effort to insure its recognition since the inception of its use in 1997. Extensive marketing campaigns have created strong awareness and acceptance of "SPALINE" products as being exclusive to ARTec. Should prospective purchasers seek access to these products on the Internet, they will be directed instead to Respondent’s website, thus diluting the Complainant’s consumer access. The Complainant says that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with ARTec’s "SPALINE" mark as to the source/affiliation of the web site or products on the web site. As further evidence of bad faith, the Complainant relies on the response of the lawyer for the Respondent when the Complainant complained about the competing website. The lawyer asked for $250,000 to change the name of the website. B. Respondent The Respondent owner Leavy says she is a pioneer in the spa industry in Austria and USA, and the author of many articles on the topic. Leavy founded Club Spa in 1991 and Club Spa USA in 1994. She publishes a newsletter for members of the industry as well as a directory for the spa industry, and consumers. She established the Club Spa website in 1997, and the SPALINE site in 1999. It pre-dated the Complainant’s site. The Respondent SPALINE website contains advertising material from and for people in the day spa industry, including cosmetics. A day spa offers massage, body treatment, aromatherapy, facials, hair salon, manicures, and the like. The Respondent does not sell spa products, but merely offers information to the public about its member’s products, most of which are not beauty or cosmetic products. The site includes advertising of equipment, robes, uniforms, insurance, music and related publications in the industry. The Respondent had no previous knowledge of the Complainant or its products. The monetary suggestion by the lawyer was made without instructions from the client. 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 documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The names are confusingly similar. It is correct as argued by the Respondent that the two parties use the word "line" in two different ways: The Complainant refers to a "line" of products, and the Respondent refers to "line" in the sense of the latest news. Most people would not be confused. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable possibility that a consumer may confuse the products advertised on the Respondent site with products of the Complainant, although I note the Complainant has not offered evidence of actual confusion Rights or Legitimate Interests I accept that the Complainant has a reasonable and legitimate business interest in the name "SPALINE". But I accept also that Respondent also has a legitimate business and legal interest in the name in the context of a newsletter and service-and-product catalog for the day spa industry and interested consumers. The resolution of the resulting dispute must take place before a more traditional tribunal. This is not a proper case for a summary determination. The real dispute between the parties is not over a domain name but rather about which, if either, has in law the exclusive use of the mark "SPALINE". See Newport News v. VCV Internet, AF -0238 (eResolution July 18, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name newportnews.com where Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide use of disseminating general information about the city of Newport News); Port of Helsinki v. Paragon Int’l Projects Ltd., D2001-0002 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2001) (finding rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, portofhelsinki.com, where the Respondent was using the domain name to provide information about services available in different ports around the world). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Although a finding of a legitimate business interest on the part of the Respondent disposes of this matter, I should add that I accept the statement of the Respondent that it had no prior knowledge of the Complainant and its products, and no intention to steal or divert its goodwill. Moreover, I accept that the claim for a large reward for a name change was nothing more than unauthorized posturing by a lawyer in the negotiation process. . DECISION Because the Respondent has established a legitimate business interest in the term SPALINE, and no bad faith has been shown, I refuse to cancel or transfer the domain name registration. Hon Roger Kerans, Panelist Dated: March 11, 2001 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.