Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
American
Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. David A. Colondres
Claim Number: FA0007000095159
PARTIES
The
Complainant is American Medical Laboratories, Inc., Chantilly, VA, USA
("Complainant"). The Respondent is David A. Colondres,
Coppell, TX, USA
("Respondent").
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME(s)
The
domain names at issue are “LABPORTAL.COM” and “LAB-PORTAL.COM”, registered with
Network Solutions Inc (“NSI”)
PANELISTS
The
Panelists certify that they have acted independently and impartially and have
no known conflict in serving as panelists in this
proceeding.
Panelists: Hon. John J. Upchurch, Chairman, Hon. Paul
A. Dorf, and Jeffrey H. Kaufman, Esquire.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum")
electronically on 07/10/2000; The Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on 07/10/2000.
On
07/11/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain names
“LABPORTAL.COM” and “LAB-PORTAL.COM” are registered with
NSI and that the
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network
Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve
domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.
On
07/18/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
08/07/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail,
post and fax, and to all entities and
persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and
billing contacts
by e-mail. It was also
emailed to postmaster@labportal.com and
The
Respondent requested an extension to respond and the Complainant consented to
this request. On 08/21/00, Respondent
submitted a Response to the Complaint to The Forum.
On
08/31/00, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a
Three Member panel, The Forum appointed Hon. John
J. Upchurch, Chairman, Hon.
Paul A. Dorf and Jeffrey H. Kaufman, Esquire, as Panelists.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent
to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1. The subject domain names are confusingly
similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
2. Complainant had used its marks, LABPORTAL
and LABPORTAL.COM, in a Power Point presentation to a potential business
partner during
Respondent’s employment as Complainant’s Chief Information
Officer.
3. Complainant filed applications for
trademark and service mark registration of the subject marks on December 29,
1999.
4. Respondent was employed by Complainant as
Senior Vice President and CIO in August, 1998.
He executed a Confidentiality Agreement that provided all “designs,
systems, discoveries, reports, programs, data, tests, recommendations,
inventions, patents, products, services, ideas, things or creative work,”
performed by him for AML were AML’s exclusive property,
and that he had no
rights to them.
5. Respondent registered the domain names
LABPORTAL.COM and LAB-PORTAL.COM on May 25, 1999 in his name.
B. Respondent
1. Respondent’s domain name registrations
preceded Complainant’s registration of the marks as trademarks.
2. Complainant did not intend to offer goods
or services under the “LABPORTAL” name.
3. The concept and the time and energy associated
with the development of LABPORTAL.COM and LAB-PORTAL.COM domain names were
Respondent’s
alone, and not in Respondent’s role as Senior Vice President or
CIO.
4. Respondent’s suggestion to Complainant
that it adopt the subject domain names was rejected; hence, Complainant
abandoned any rights
therein.
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 names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly
similar to trademarks or service marks in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2)
the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
names; and
(3)
the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar
The subject domain names are
identical to or confusingly similar to marks in which we find the Complainant
has rights or legitimate
interests, i.e., LABPORTAL.COM and
LAB-PORTAL.COM. See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO,
D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name
<quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the
Complainant’s
distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar).
Rights
or Legitimate Interests
Complainant’s rights are clearly
established by virtue of the Confidentiality Agreement between Complainant and
Respondent, even in
the absence of a prior use by Complainant of the
marks. Respondent had a contractual as
well as a fiduciary responsibility to register the subject domain names in the
name of his employer,
the Complainant, and not individually in his own
name. See Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22,2000)
(noting legal rights attach despite lack of registration).
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent surreptitiously
registered the domain names while employed by Complainant. The registration explicitly violated the
Confidentiality Agreement, as well as the common law fiduciary responsibilities
of a corporate
officer. This conduct
constitutes bad faith on the part of Respondent. See Exec-U-Net, Inc. v.
Exec-U-Net, FA 0004000094639 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2000) (noting
Respondent’s knowledge of the use of the name and trademark before selecting
her company’s name is a clear indication of bad faith).
DECISION
The
panel unanimously finds for the Complainant and against the Respondent, and has
determined that the subject domain names, to-wit:
LABPORTAL.COM and
LAB-PORTAL.COM shall be transferred from RESPONDENT to COMPLAINANT.
Honorable John J. Upchurch
Retired Judge
Arbitrator
Decision entered this 22nd day
of September, 2000.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2000/1138.html