Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

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

Best Access Systems,

COMPLAINANT,

vs.

Independent Security Systems,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Forum File No.: FA 0004000094429

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The above entitled matter came on for an Administrative Hearing before the undersigned on the Complaint of Best Access Systems ("Best") against Respondent, Independent Security Systems ("Independent"). This matter has been brought under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution rules and policy adopted by the Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers ("ICANN") and the rules for Uniform Name Dispute Resolution policy adopted by ICANN on October 24, 1999.

The record reflects that the Complaint was received by the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") on April 14, 2000.

In accord with paragraph 4(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Rules") and paragraph 4 of the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, it is determined that the Complaint herein satisfies the requirements of the Policy, rules and supplemental rules. In accord therewith, Respondent was sent a copy of the Complaint along with a notice that the same had been filed and advised pursuant to the Rules that a response to said Complaint was due within 20 calendar days from the date Respondent received the notification, service having been achieved on Respondent and no response having been made within the 20 calendar days after service, Respondent is considered in default. The undersigned may draw such reasonable inferences from said default as considered appropriate in accord with Rule 14 of the Rules.

Complainant Best, a Delaware corporation, is located at 8900 Keystone Crossing, Suite 110, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 and is represented by Julia Spoor Gard, Esq., c/o Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, who may be contacted by telephone at (317) 231-1313 and whose preferred methods of communication are (a) electronic-only material e-mail at jgard@btlaw.com and (b) fax at (317) 231-7443.

Respondent’s name and address are given as Independent Security Systems, 1558 Arnaca Lane, Lancaster, California 93535 USA. Its administrative contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact is Mark Silver (MS29991) at e-mail address iss@NETPORT.COM.

The domain name which is the subject of the Complaint herein is BESTLOCKS.COM registered with Network Solutions, Inc. The record reflects that Complainant Best is the owner of several registered trademarks including Reg. Nos. 937,551 and 955,008 for the mark BEST® for locks, keys, and parts of locks, Reg. No. 926,159 for the mark BEST® in conjunction with a "figure 8" style lock, and Reg. No. 1,202,517 for the unique shape of its key in connection with a star and crosshatch pattern.

The record reflects that since 1925 Best has made common law use of the marks BEST® and BEST LOCK™ marks. Its present web site is www.bestlock.com.

Respondent’s domain name, BESTLOCKS.COM is virtually identical to Complainant’s BEST LOCK marks.

The record reflects that Complainant and Respondent are involved in the same business, of offering locks, keys, and lock parts, including specialty locks and marketing and distributing such items from their respective web site. The record reflects that the Respondent’s web site, WWW.BESTLOCKS.COM originally featured the shape of a BEST Key and a "figure 8"-shaped lock, on both of which Complainant holds registered trademarks. Respondent was not and is not authorized to offer Best products, nor does its site appear to offer BEST products.

Respondent, though a competitor of Complainant involved in the same business, has no rights or legitimate interest in the BESTLOCKS.COM domain name. Indeed, prior to the Respondent’s becoming the record owner of the domain name BESTLOCKS.com on June 2, 1999, Complainant had since 1925 been using BEST for its products. It would appear obvious that internet users to Respondent’s web site would face the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, as persons using search engines and looking for BEST brand locks are understandably directed to Respondent’s web site without knowledge that the Respondent is not affiliated in any manner with Complainant. Such conduct as in the instant case constitutes a violation of paragraph 4(b) (iv) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) provides that in those cases, such as the instant one, wherein a Respondent has used a domain name for the purpose of intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain, internet users to its web site or other on-line location, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location of a product or service on its web site or location, such conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith.

There is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith in the fact that Complainant has requested that Respondent relinquish the domain name BESTLOCKS.COM and as of the filing of the Complaint in this Court, Respondent was continuing to advertise the domain name and to offer locks, keys, and lock parts on its web site. This, too, supports the undersigned’s conclusion of Respondent’s bad faith. See paragraph 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

For the reasons heretofore stated and pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned who has acted independently and has no known conflict in serving as the arbitrator in this proceeding, it is

DIRECTED that the registration of the domain name "BESTLOCKS.COM" be forthwith transferred to the Complainant, Best Access Systems.

Dated: May 19, 2000 Honorable Robert R. Merhige, Jr.

Retired Judge, Arbitrator

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2000/345.html