UDRP CASE SUMMARY ARCHIVES - DOMAIN NAME LEGAL DISPUTES

Lightnight Eliminators & Consultants, Inc. v. Superior Grounding Systems

[Indexed as:  Lightnight Eliminators & Consultants v. Superior Grounding Systems]
[Indexed as:  chemrod.com]

National Arbitration Forum
Administrative Hearing

Forum file No.:  FA#94348
Commenced:  March 22, 2000
Judgment:  April 19, 2000

Arbitrator:  R. Glen Ayers, Jr.

Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S. Trademark - No response from Respondent - Business competitors - Identical - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - Hyphens.

Complainant is owner of Trademark "Chem-Rod" in relation to the sale of products that protect buildings and structures from lightning.  Respondent registered the domain chemrod.com.  Respondent has made no use of the domain name and is in fact a competitor of the Complainant.  Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.  Respondent did not respond to complaint.

Held, Name should be transferred.

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, even though the trademark contains a hyphen.  The Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain.  The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.  Although the domain itself is on "hold", the very registration is itself a "use" of the domain name.

Policies referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999
 

Ayers, Arbitrator: --

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on April 20, 2000, before the undersigned on the Complaint of Lightnight Eliminators & Consultants, Inc., hereafter "Complainant", against Superior Grounding Systems, hereafter "Respondent". Complainant was represented upon the written submitted record by Margaret Poulson, Esq., Patent Law Office of Rick Martin, P.C., 416 Coffman Street, Longmont, Co., 80501. Respondent did not appear. Correspondence addressed to Respondent was not deliverable. The Complaint was e-mailed to Respondent. Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION is made:


PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

· Domain Name: chemrod.com 

· Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc. 

· Domain Name Registrant: Superior Grounding Systems 

· Date of Domain Name Registration: February 17, 1997 

· Date of Complaint Filed: March 22, 2000 

· Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule 2(a) and Rule4(c): March 22, 2000 

· Due date for a Response: April 13, 2000 

After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to Respondent, 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, ICANN, the Complainant and the Respondent that the administrative proceeding had commenced. Respondent did not submit a response to the Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a). 

On February 17, 1997, Respondent registered the domain name "chemrod.com" with Network Solutions, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. Network Solutions verified that Respondent is the Registrant for the domain name "chemrod.com". Further, by registering its domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN's rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant is the owner of the Trademark "Chem-Rod." The Trademark was issued in 1988. The name was in wide use prior to the registration of the domain name by Respondent.

2. The domain name is identical to the Trademark except as to a hyphen. The record is very clear as to ownership of the mark by Complainant.

3. Respondent apparently has made no use of the domain name.  Network Solutions reports that the registration is on "hold". Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.

4. Complainant has shown that it and Respondent are competitors in the business of selling products which protect buildings and structures from lightning. The parties sell identical products.

CONCLUSIONS

5. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Complainant has met its burden of proof and the domain name should be transferred as requested by Complainant. 

1. The continued use by Respondent would violate the ICANN Policy at Paragraph 4(a): 

"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 legitimate interests in respect of the domain name", and,

3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith."

Although the domain itself is on "hold", the very registration is itself a "use" of the
domain name. 

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
"chemrod.com" BE TRANSFERRED TO Complainant.
 

R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
Arbitrator

Dated:  April 19, 2000

Domain name transferred

 Fast Free ConsultationsFast Free Consultations

Call DNattorneyCALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

toll free number

Email DNattorney

Chat with DNattorney.com