Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

JON W. LEE v. aeon NETWORK SERVICES [2000] GENDND 987 (30 August 2000)

National Arbitration Forum

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

_____________________________________________________________________________

JON W. LEE

Complainant

v. DECISION

aeon NETWORK SERVICES Forum File No.: FA 0006000095035

____________________________________________________________________________

The above-entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on August 30, 2000, before the undersigned on the Complaint of JON W. LEE, hereafter "Complainant", against aeon network services, hereafter "Respondent". Upon the written submitted record, the following decision is made:

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

Domain Name:aeon.net

Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.

Domain Name Registrant: AEON

Date of Domain Name Registration: 9/5/95

Date Complaint filed: 6/16/00

Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule

2(a)[1] and Rule 4(c): 6/21/00

Due date for a Response: 7/11/00

Respondent filed 2nd response on: August 18, 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 June 21, 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 Network Solutions, Inc., the INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) and the Respondent that the administrative proceeding had commenced. Respondent filed a response as required by Rule 5(a). Because of the Respondentís then impending marriage and honeymoon, the Respondent requested, and the Arbitrator granted him, an extension to August 20,2000, to file a response, with a decision due on August 30, 2000. Both parties have since filed supplemental submissions which the Arbitrator has considered.

The Respondent registered the domain name AEON.NET with Domain Name Registrar Network Solutions, Inc., the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. The Domain Name Registrar, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., verified that Respondent is the Registrant for the domain name aeon.net and that further by registering its domain name with NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANNís Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The undisputed evidence establishes that:

1. Complainant has engaged in business using the name AEON since 1989.

2. Complainant registered AEON as a Trademark on September 24, 1991.

3. The United States Patent & Trademark Office approved the mark for publication on September 24, 1991. (Reg. No. 1,658,073).

4. Respondent registered the domain name aeon.net on September 5, 1995.

5. Complainant has been actively engaged in business under the name AEON since 1989 and sells products nationally and internationally under the Mark. The Complainant uses the website aeon.com for the purposes of promoting the sales of videotapes, and intends to use the Internet for broadband delivery of its video products. In addition, the Complainant also provides clients with the following services: intellectual property development, website design/development, website master, and network services. Federal Trademark applications have been prepared for submission to extend the AEON Mark to include these services. The Complainant has invested substantial sums of money in developing and marketing its service under the Mark AEON.

6. The services advertised and promoted by the Complainant are advertised and promoted at the aeon.com website as well.

7. The Respondent is not named AEON, he has no trademarks or service marks including the name AEON. The Respondent is not actively involved in a business under the name AEON. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the name AEON.

8. The two domain names are confusingly similar.

9. Respondentís failure to offer any evidence permits the inference that the similarity of names is misleading and that Respondent intentionally is diverting business from Complainant for the sale of similar goods through electronic commerce.

10. Complainant had a long-standing interest in the name AEON and filed the domain name AEON before Respondent filed aeon.net.

11. Respondent has shown no legitimate interest to any version of the AEON.

12. Complainant has established that the name AEON is familiar in domestic and international commerce in the market area in which both Complainant and Respondent compete.

13. The evidence of widespread use of AEON worldwide allows the inference that Respondent had actual or at least constructive notice as a competitor of the prior use of the mark and name.

14. The following is evidence of Respondentís bad faith in registering the domain name aeon.net.

Complainantís prayer for relief requests that Respondentís domain name aeon.net be transferred from Respondent to Complainant, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of ICANNís Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

1. The domain name aeon.net registered by Respondent, is so close as to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainantís AEON mark to which Complainant has established its legal right and to which Respondent has failed to show any legitimate right or interest. See Visit America, Inc. v. Visit America, FA 95093 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2000) (stating that ë.comí is part of the trademark [and it] indicates the type of entity and has no significance as a mark.")

2. Respondent acted in bad faith by registering or acquiring the domain name aeon.net primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. See Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Spanno Indus., FA95283 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) ( holding that registering a domain name to attract Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a respondentís website is evidence of bad faith).

3. Respondent acted in bad faith by wrongfully using the domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion between Complainant and Respondentís respective businesses. Policy  4(b)(iv).

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 aeon.net, registered by respondent be transferred to complainant.

DATED: August 30, 2000

Honorable Richard DiSalle, Panelist

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page