Here are the facts of the case:
“Complainant or its predecessors have operated a retail business under the TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY service mark since 1938.”
It has adopted several versions of the service mark, including TRACTOR SUPPLY, TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. AND TSC. ”
Complainant has a federally registered service mark for TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. ”
Complainant has registered tractorsupply.com, tractorsupply.org, tractorsupplyco.com, and tractorsupplycompany.com, and conducts online business via its websites.
“The website is inactive, and is parked with the Registrar, GoDaddy.com. According to the informal response filed on June 10, 2010, Respondent states:
“The purpose of my purchasing the domain name was to help my father-in law re-sell tractors that he buys and fixes-up and take the proceeds to build handi-cap accessible walkways, ramp, barn, and feeding stations for the goats, rabbits, chickens, and other animals that we have on our farm because my wife and I volunteer to do work with special needs young adults, and my father-in law has helped us out tremendously with clearing land and making preperations [sic] at our farm thus far.”
“Complainant has at least 930 stores in 44 states. Particularly noteworthy, one of Complainant’s TRACTOR SUPPLY stores is located less than five miles from Respondent’s address.”
“Based on these facts, it can be strongly inferred that Respondent would have been aware of the TRACTOR SUPPLY marks prior to registering the disputed domain name.”
“Even if Respondent were to use the website, it would be “… to… re-sell tractors…” Clearly, this is for commercial gain. It does not matter for what purpose the Respondent might use those proceeds. Respondent therefore has violated paragraph (4)(b)(iv).”
“This Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that Complainant meets the third criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.”
For those who don’t think generic terms can be trademarks and even if trademarked should trademarks would not be upheld, here is a case that says differently.