Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
LIGHTNIGHT ELIMINATORS & CONSULTANTS, INC.,
COMPLAINANT,
vs.
SUPERIOR GROUNDING SYSTEMS, RESPONDENT.
DECISION ______________________________________
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
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 ICANNs rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Trademark was issued in 1988. The name was in wide use prior to the registration of the domain name by Respondent.
record is very clear as to ownership of the mark by Complainant.
Solutions reports that the registration is on "hold". Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.
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) ººthe 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) ººthe Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain nameºº", 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.
Dated: April 19, 2000, by R. Glen Ayers, Jr. (formerly United States Bankruptcy Judge), Arbitrator
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback |