Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA
www.arbitration-forum.com

CHANNEL D CORPORATION

(Complainant)

vs.

CHANNEL-D

(Respondent)

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on April 25, 2000 before the undersigned on the Complaint of CHANNEL-D CORPORATION against CHANNEL-D. John J. DeLaney, Jr., Esquire, of Cooper, Rose & English, LLP, 480 Morris Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901, represents Complainant. Drew Lesser, P.O. Box 592, Toorak, Vic 2142, AU, represents Respondent. Upon the written submitted record, the following decision is made:

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

1. This dispute concerns the domain name(s) identified below:

Domain Name: channel-d.com

Created On: October 13, 1999

Expires On: October 13, 2001

2. The registrar(s) with which the domain name(s) is registered is as follows:

Registrar: NameSecure.com

Address: P.O. Box 127

Moraga, California 94556

FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

3. The Complaint is based on the following grounds:

(1) The Complainant, Channel D Corporation, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey and has been in existence since December 1995. The Complainant provides telecommunications and utility standby power testing and consulting services, scientific audio signal analysis software and video signal analysis software under the business and trademark of Channel D.

(2) The domain name at issue is nearly identical to and is alleged to be confusingly similar to Complaint's registered business/trademark of Channel D.

(3) The Complainant alleges that there is no evidence that Respondent has used or is prepared to use the domain name at issue in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has visited Respondent's domain name on several occasions before filing the within Complaint and at no time has the Respondent's site had any active links, nor has it ever offered any information, including any information regarding Respondent's products or services.

4. Respondent alleges Channel-D Pty, Ltd., was registered as a company in Australia in October 1994. It is registered in Australia and operates a business that is completely unrelated to Channel D Corporation; further, that it has no interest in attempting to divert the business of Channel-D Corporation nor has it known of its existence; further, that the site is currently incomplete and is to be completed upon the return of the director who is currently in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

The domain name Channel-D registered by Respondent appears to be supported by a showing of a legitimate right or interest in the Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent has acted in bad faith by registering or acquiring the domain name Channel-D.

Complainant's prayer for relief requesting that the domain name Channel-D be cancelled or transferred from Respondent to Complainant is DENIED.

BY: ____________________________________

Judge Richard B. Wickersham (Ret.)

DATED: April 25, 2000