UDRP CASE SUMMARY ARCHIVES - DOMAIN NAME LEGAL DISPUTES

Network One v. Box One Productions

[Indexed as: Network One v. Box One]
[Indexed as: Networkone.com]

National Arbitration Forum
Case No. FA0005000094803

Commenced: 22 May 2000
Judgement: 28 June 2000 

Panelist: Timothy D. O'Leary

Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - Identical - Legitimate rights - Bad faith - Cyber-squatting - Default.

Complainant registered the domain name networkone.com at an earlier date than Respondent's registration of the same name.  Respondent has not used the name since its registration. Complainant alleged that Respondent's name is identical to its own name, that Respondent has no rights to the name, that the name has been registered and used in bad faith.  Complainant also alleged that Respondent's infringement on their trademark will cause Complainant harm, and that Respondent is guilty of cyber-squatting.

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.

Respondent's domain name is identical to Complainant's domain name.  
Respondent has not used the domain name since its registration.  Also, since Respondent is in default in this proceeding, the Panel deems that Complainant's allegations are true, and that the burden of proof has been met.

Policies referred to
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
O'Leary, Panelist: -

PARTIES

The complainant is Network One. The respondent is Box One Productions.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(S)

The domain name at issue is Networkone.com registered with Network Solutions.

PANELIST(s) Honorable Timothy D. O' Leary  (Ret.) As Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (The
Forum) electronically on May 10, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on May 10, 2000.

On May 13, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the
domain name(s) networkone.com is registered with Box One Productions and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On May 22, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative proceeding (the Commencement Notification), setting a deadline of
June 15, 2000, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, zone and billing
contacts by email.

On June 15, 2000, having received no Response from Respondent, using the same
contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the
WPIO Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On June 14, 2000, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a Single member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Timothy O'Leary
(Ret.) As Panelist(s).

Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Panelist finds The
Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules
Ato employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to
respondent.
 

Therefore, the Panel issues his Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the
Uniform Rules, The Forum Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of any
Response from Respondent.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Complainant registered the domain name networkone.com on January 10, 1995. 
Respondent registered networkone.com on August 15, 1995.  This registration is
identical to Complainant's  Respondent offers similar telecommunication services. 
Respondent has not used its registration since August 1995.

PARTIES CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the
following:

(1) that 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) that 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.

Complainant states that the facts set forth above can cause them harm because of
the confusion, mistake and deception that can occur and thus there is an
infringement of their trademark.  In addition, it contends that nonuse of the
registration by Respondent since August 1995 is cyber-squatting.

B.  Respondent is in default

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the
following:

(1)  that 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)  that 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.

In arriving at the conclusion that Complainant has met the burden of proving the
elements set out above, I considered that Respondent's default in this proceeding
justifies the inference that theses contentions are true and I deem them to be
admitted.

DECISION

It is therefore Ordered that the domain name of networkone.com be transferred to
Complainant Network One.
 


Domain Name Transferred

Fast Free Consultations

Call DNattorneyCALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

toll free number

Email DNattorney

Chat with DNattorney.com