|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Spectra Renal
Holdings Inc. v. Richard Ignatowicz
Claim Number: FA0112000102856
PARTIES
The Complainant is Spectra Renal Holdings Inc., Lexington, MA (“Complainant”). The Respondent is Richard Ignatowicz, Cheshire, UK (“Respondent”).
The domain name at issue is <lia.biz>, registered with Melbourne IT d/b/a Internet Names World Wide.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
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 December 13, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 12, 2001.
On December 19, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 8, 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”).
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 8, 2002.
On January 25, 2002 pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as the single Panelist.
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
A. Complainant
Qix, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Complainant Spectra Renal Holdings, Inc., is the owner of the trademark “LIA” which is the name of its clinical laboratory operating system. Complainant contends that Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name and contends that Respondent appears to be in the business of registering domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or transferring them.
B. Respondent
Respondent states that his daughter’s name is “Lia” and that the domain name is a shortened version of “Lia Ignatowicz Associates.” Respondent acknowledges registering other domain names but contends he has done so for only those “linked” directly to his business.
Complainant has rights in the mark “LIA.” Respondent does not contest that Complainant is the owner of the trademark “LIA.” Respondent’s use of the domain name <LIA.biz> based upon the “shortened version of ‘Lia Ignatowicz Associates” without any explanation of the business purpose of the organization and the connection between the organization and the use of the domain name is insufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has not established that Respondent’s use of the domain name is in bad faith within the meaning of the STOP policy.
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.”
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.
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 has rights in the mark “LIA.” Respondent does not contest that Complainant is the owner of the trademark “LIA.”
Respondent’s use of the domain name <LIA.biz> based upon the “shortened version of ‘Lia Ignatowicz Associates” without any explanation of the business purpose of the organization and the connection between the organization and the use of the domain name is insufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Complainant has not established that Respondent’s use of the domain name is in bad faith within the meaning of the STOP policy.
DECISION
The Complaint is dismissed although subsequent challenges under the Policy against this domain name shall be permitted.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: February 7, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/177.html