|
Lightnight
Eliminators & Consultants, Inc. v. Superior Grounding Systems
[Indexed as:
Lightnight Eliminators & Consultants v. Superior Grounding Systems]
[Indexed as:
chemrod.com]
National Arbitration
Forum
Administrative
Hearing
Forum file
No.: FA#94348
Commenced:
March 22, 2000
Judgment:
April 19, 2000
Arbitrator:
R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
Domain name
- Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S. Trademark - No response
from Respondent - Business competitors - Identical - Confusingly similar
- Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - Hyphens.
Complainant
is owner of Trademark "Chem-Rod" in relation to the sale of products that
protect buildings and structures from lightning. Respondent registered
the domain chemrod.com. Respondent has made no use of the domain
name and is in fact a competitor of the Complainant. Complainant
alleges that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad
faith. Respondent did not respond to complaint.
Held,
Name should be transferred.
The domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark,
even though the trademark contains a hyphen. The Respondent has no
legitimate interests in respect of the domain. The domain name has
been registered and used in bad faith. Although the domain itself
is on "hold", the very registration is itself a "use" of the domain name.
Policies
referred to
Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999
Ayers, Arbitrator:
--
The above entitled
matter came on for an administrative hearing on April 20, 2000, before
the undersigned on the Complaint of Lightnight Eliminators & Consultants,
Inc., hereafter "Complainant", against Superior Grounding Systems, hereafter
"Respondent". Complainant was represented upon the written submitted record
by Margaret Poulson, Esq., Patent Law Office of Rick Martin, P.C., 416
Coffman Street, Longmont, Co., 80501. Respondent did not appear. Correspondence
addressed to Respondent was not deliverable. The Complaint was e-mailed
to Respondent. Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION
is made:
PROCEDURAL
FINDINGS
· Domain
Name: chemrod.com
· Domain
Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.
· Domain
Name Registrant: Superior Grounding Systems
· Date
of Domain Name Registration: February 17, 1997
· Date
of Complaint Filed: March 22, 2000
· Date
of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule 2(a)
and Rule4(c): March 22, 2000
· Due
date for a Response: April 13, 2000
After reviewing
the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the
National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to Respondent,
in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced
pursuant to Rule 4(c). In compliance with Rule 4(d), the Forum immediately
notified Network Solutions, ICANN, the Complainant and the Respondent that
the administrative proceeding had commenced. Respondent did not submit
a response to the Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a).
On February
17, 1997, Respondent registered the domain name "chemrod.com" with Network
Solutions, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. Network
Solutions verified that Respondent is the Registrant for the domain name
"chemrod.com". Further, by registering its domain name with Network Solutions,
Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through
ICANN's rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Complainant
is the owner of the Trademark "Chem-Rod." The Trademark was issued in 1988.
The name was in wide use prior to the registration of the domain name by
Respondent.
2. The domain
name is identical to the Trademark except as to a hyphen. The record is
very clear as to ownership of the mark by Complainant.
3. Respondent
apparently has made no use of the domain name. Network Solutions
reports that the registration is on "hold". Respondent has not responded
to the Complaint.
4. Complainant
has shown that it and Respondent are competitors in the business of selling
products which protect buildings and structures from lightning. The parties
sell identical products.
CONCLUSIONS
5. Given the
totality of the circumstances, the Complainant has met its burden of proof
and the domain name should be transferred as requested by Complainant.
1. The continued
use by Respondent would violate the ICANN Policy at Paragraph 4(a):
"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, and,
2) the Respondent
has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name", and,
3) the domain
name has been registered and used in bad faith."
Although the
domain itself is on "hold", the very registration is itself a "use" of
the
domain name.
DECISION
Based upon
the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is
decided as
follows:
THE UNDERSIGNED
DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME
"chemrod.com"
BE TRANSFERRED TO Complainant.
R. Glen Ayers,
Jr.
Arbitrator
Dated:
April 19, 2000
Domain
name transferred
|