Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

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

Datastream International Limited

COMPLAINANT,

VS.

Micro Management Systems

RESPONDENT.

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE DECISION
Forum File: FA 0003000094382

___________________________________________

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on May 11, 2000 before the undersigned on the Complaint of the above named Complainant, against Micro Management Systems, hereafter "Respondent". Complainant is represented by Charles E. Baxley, 59 John Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038. Johnny W. Warren, Post Office Box 775, Dublin, Georgia 31040, represented the Respondent.

Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION is made:

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

Domain Name: datastream.net

Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.

Domain Name Registrant: Micro Management Systems

Date of Domain Name Registration: September 1995

Date Complaint Filed: March 31, 2000

Due Date for a Response: April 27, 2000

Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule 2(a)l and Rule 4(c): April 6, 2000

After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent on April 6, 2000 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 the above Registrar, Network Solutions, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainants that the administrative proceeding had commenced. Respondent did submit a response to The Forum.

In September of 1995, Respondent registered the domain name "datastream.net" with Network Solutions, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain names. By registering its domain names with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain names through ICANN's Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as the Arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been duly selected, and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In the United States of America, as well as in all other jurisdictions throughout the worlds; Complainant, Datastream International Limited is exclusive proprietor of the service mark DATASTREAM.

2. Complainant is owner of United States Service Mark Registration 1.735,227, DATASTREAM registered in connection with assessment, research and evaluation services (fiscal) by means of computer accessing of information databases, analyzing and computing, both on-line and in printed numerical and graphical forms, in the fields of securities, currencies, commodities, fiscal futures, interest, exchange rates and economic indicators. The mark was registered on November 24, 1992.

3. Complainant is exclusive owner of domain name registration DATASTREAM.COM

4. In or about September 1995, Respondent registered the Internet domain name DATASTREAM.NET.

5. On March 25, 1996, Complainant wrote Respondent demanding that it cease and thereafter desist from use of the domain name.

6. On January 21, 1998, attorneys for Complainant wrote Network Solutions, Inc. requesting that the domain name be placed on hold pending resolution of the dispute. Respondent elected to withdraw registration of the domain name and it has been placed on hold.

7. Respondent has offered to transfer the domain name to Complainant for $30,000 which it represents are costs involved concerning the name, attorney fees and transfer to another name.

8. Micro Management Systems is a retail computer store owned and operated by Micro Management Systems, Inc. a Georgia corporation which does business under that tradename. Darrell R Harrell was a partner in the business which operated Micro Management Systems and a local on-line bulletin board which began operation in June 1992 identified as Datastream. Later Respondent entered business as an internet service provider which required a domain name registration. The name Datastream was chosen for that purpose.

9. Respondent states the name Datastream was selected for the bulletin board service and the internet service provider because of its generic descriptive attributes. The name describes what is physically occurring during the interchange of information in the on-line media.

10. Neither Respondent nor the principals of Micro Management Systems nor their attorney had ever heard of DIL and therefore had no intention to play upon or benefit from the good will enjoyed by Complainant.

11. Complainant has requested transfer of the domain name.

CONCLUSIONS

To obtain relief under paragraph 4(a)of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

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 right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and

3. The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Similarity Between Registrant's Domain Name and Complainant's Trade or Service Mark.

The domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to or identical to the registered service mark owned by Complainant.

Respondent's Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name.

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, evidence of a registrant's rights or legitimate interest in the domain name includes:

1. Demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute;

2. An indication that the registrant has been commonly known by the domain name even if it has acquired no trademark rights; or

3. Legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

Respondent has made a showing with respect to factor 1. Respondent has used the name in offering services years before the dispute. The Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.

Respondent's Bad Faith Registration and Use of the Domain Name.

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use includes:

1. Circumstances indicating the domain name was registered for the purpose of resale to the trademark owner or competitor for profit;

2. A pattern of conduct showing an attempt to prevent others from obtaining a domain name corresponding to their trademarks;

3. Registration of the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

4. Using the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's web site or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark owner's mark.

Complainant has not shown any bad faith as defined by the policy.

Under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Complainant has not proven that the domain name should be transferred to Complainant. Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name and it was not registered and used in bad faith.

DECISION

Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided by the undersigned as follows:

THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY COMPLAINANT IS DENIED. THE DOMAIN NAME "DATASTREAM.NET" SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RESPONDENT.

Dated: May 11, 2000 Judge Karl V. Fink, Arbitrator