START-UP TRADEMARK OPPOSITION POLICY

DECISION

National Business Furniture v. CSI

Claim Number: FA0204000112589

PARTIES

Complainant is National Business Furniture, Milwaukee, WI (“Complainant”).  Respondent is CSI, Austin, TX (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <desks.biz>, registered with Gal Communications Ltd.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint, as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (IP) Claim Form with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel.  As an IP Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 26, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 26, 2002.

On May 20, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 10, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On July 15, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin as the single Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the STOP Rules.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has a pending trademark application for FURNITUREONLINE.COM.

Respondent registered <desks.biz> in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response.

FINDINGS

Complainant does not claim or assert to have any rights in the term DESKS.  Complainant merely notes that it is in the online furniture sales business, and states that it has a pending trademark application for FURNITUREONLINE.COM. 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 27, 2002.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the STOP Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the STOP Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:

(1) the domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Due to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these STOP proceedings, the Panel will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where applicable.

Under the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form.  Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service mark in which a Complainant asserts rights.  The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant asserts rights.

Complainant’s Rights in the Mark

Due to the fact that Complainant failed to assert any rights in a trademark or service mark identical to <desks.biz>, the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has not been satisfied.

DECISION

Having failed to establish a necessary element required under the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby denied.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Complaint be dismissed.  There is one further challenge pending against this domain name under the STOP Policy; however, the claimant in the pending challenge and claimant in the instant case are the same entity.  Pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(l)(ii)(3) and STOP Rule 15(e), further challenges against this domain name under the STOP Policy shall not be permitted.

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

Dated: July 17, 2002

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1183.html