Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy –U.S. Trademark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use- 

That Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark STAINMASTER. Respondent registered the domain name STAINMASTER.COM By registering his domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its Domain Name through ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy.

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.

Complainant must prove both that the domain was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith.

The domain name STAINMASTER.COM registered by Respondent is identical to Complainant's federally registered trademark, STAINMASTER. Respondent has made no demonstrated effort to use the domain name in connection with an offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. This is bad faith registration.

Respondent registered and acquired the domain name, STAINMASTER.COM primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name registration to the Complainant, who is the owner of the Trademark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for a valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses related to the domain name. Respondent used the domain name in bad faith.

Policies referred to

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

Registration Agreements referred to
--

Cases referred to
--

Panel Decision referred to
--

Blizzard, J, arbitrator- 

DECISION
The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on March 29,2000 before the undersigned on the complaint of E.I.duPont de Nemours & Company,
hereafter “Complainant” against Mark Fisher, hereafter called “Respondent”. Complainant was  represented by Leo J. Bechet and David J. Gould, c/o E.I DuPont deMours, 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898. The Responded appeared without counsel. Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION was made:

PROCEDURAL FINDING
Domain Name: stainmaster.com
Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.
Domain Name Registrant: Domain Name for Sale/ Mark Fishman
Date of Domain Name: Registration: January 20. 1999
Date Complaint Filed: February 13, 2000
Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rules ICANN: February 17, 2000
Due date for a Response: March 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(d). The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions, Inc., the Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceedings had commenced. Respondent submitted a response dated March 19, 2000.

On January 10, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name “stainmaster.com”, with Network Solutions. On February 23, 2000, Network Solutions verified that Respondent is the registrant for the domain name “stainmaster.com”, and that further by registering his domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its Domain Name through ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolutions Policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.     That Complainant is the owner of the trademark, “STAINMASTER”, Registration Number 2129204, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

2.     The domain name is identical to the federally registered trademark.

3.     The trademark is used on carpets.

4.     Respondent has made no demonstrated effort to use the domain name in
connection with an offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name; and the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling the registration to the owner of the trademark for a valuable consideration in excess of out of pocket costs. The Respondent listed the name for sale on the domain site and asked Complainant to pay a consideration of $5000.00 for the transfer.

5.     The Respondent has no legitimate right to the use of the domain name.

6.     Complainant prayer for relief requests that the domain name “stainmaster.com” be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

CONCLUSIONS
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as Arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been duly selected and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following findings and conclusions:

1. The domain name “stainmaster.com” registered by Respondent, January 20,
1999, is identical to Complainants federally registered trademark, “STAINMASTER”, to which Responded has no right or legitimate interest.

2.     Respondent registered and acquired the domain name, “stainmaster.com” primarily for the purpose of selling the said domain name registration to the Complainant, who is the owner of the Trademark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for a valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses related to the domain name. Respondent registered and used said name in bad faith. 

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 ‘stainmaster.com.” REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT, MARK FISHMAN BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINTANT, E.I. duPONT deMOURS AND COMPANY.

Dated: March 29, 2000, by Judge Henry W. Blizzard, (Ret.), Arbitrator
Honorable Henry Blizzard