TenantWise
Home Search For Space My Tenantwise About TenantWise Contact



Login

Register
Search for Manhattan Office Space





Privacy

DECISION

Jan Lawrence Zegarac v Corsair Group/Tenantwise, Inc.

Claim Number: FA0008000095496

PARTIES

The Complainant is Jan Lawrence Zegarac d/b/a/ Manhattan Office Space, New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Corsair Group/TenantWise, Inc., New York, NY, USA ("Respondent").

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s)

The domain name at issue is "manhattan-office-space.com" registered with All West Communications.

PANELIST(s)

The undersigned (or panelist) 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 the panelist in this proceeding.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on August 28, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 28, 2000.

On 08/30/00, All West Communications confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "manhattan-office-space.com" is registered with All West Communications and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. All West Communications has verified that Respondent is bound by the All West Communications registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On August 31, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 20, 2000 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@manhattan-office-space.com by e-mail.

On September 25, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul D. Dorf (Ret.) 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 contends that the Respondent, by obtaining and using the domain names that are the subject of this Complaint, has caused, or is likely to cause, confusion, mistake or deception to the public as the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Also, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and, further, the Respondent violated the Complainant’s trademarks and is using the domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that the words "manhattan" "office" and "space" are generic terms and that the Complainant has failed to establish either fame or secondary meaning associated with its name.

FINDINGS

The Complainant is a New York state licenced real estate brokerage providing Tenant-only representation in the New York City Metropolitan area. Since September, 1998, the Complainant has continuously and exclusively transacted business as a commercial real estate brokerage under the trade name "Manhattan Office Space" and maintained a web site by the same name.

By its own admission, Complainant registered the domain names "manhattanoffices.net and manhattanoffices.org., both of which are not used to conduct business nor are any web sites maintained under those names.

The Respondent is an on-line office leasing broker that focuses on leasing office space in Manhattan. Their operation is that of a discount office brokerage model, differentiating their services from the full commission brokerage model, the type of business model the Complainant is engaged in. As their business models differ, they would not want to be associated with the Complainant’s business "Manhattan Office Space."

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("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 three words Manhattan, office and space are generic terms used on a daily basis. No one firm is recognized as the definitive broker for Manhattan office space. See General Machine Products Co. v. Prime Domains, FA 92531 (Nat. Arb. Forum) (finding that the domain name is comprised of generic or descriptive terms and therefore not transferring the domain name)

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As there are many firms whose business consists of leasing office space in Manhattan, Respondent has a legitimate right and/or interest in using generic terms in its domain name to attract business. See EAuto,L.L.C. v. EAuto Parks, D200-0096 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name where the Respondent has used the domain name to post information on its business)

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Respondent launched this web site on April 10, 2000, and operates exclusively in Manhattan at this time. By contacting landlords and brokers individually through the use of in-house research assistants, there are over 3,000 listings of available office space in Manhattan on the Respondent’s web site. The Respondent registered the domain name as a possible avenue to attract business. The Respondent’s web site seeks to involve and work with other brokers, and not to limit competition. See Goldmasters Precious Metals v. Gold Masters srl, FA 95246 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug 21, 2000) (finding no bad faith where even though Respondent’s ownership and purported use of the domain name frustrates Complainant’s efforts, the record does not indicate any purpose or intent on the part of the Respondent to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, to disrupt the business of a competitor, or to intentionally attract the customers of Complainant to Respondent’s site by creating a likelihood of confusion).

DECISION

THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME MANHATTAN-OFFICE-SPACE.COM BY RESPONDENT, CORSAIR GROUP/TENANTWISE.INC. REMAIN WITH THE RESPONDENT.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.)

Dated: October 11, 2000

Goods & Services     Privacy     Press     Terms of Use