[Indexed as: Parachute v. Kristian Jones]
[Indexed as: PARACHUTE.COM]
National Arbitration Forum
Administrative Panel Decision
Forum File No.: FA0006000094947
Commenced: 1 June, 2000
Judgment: 12 July, 2000
Presiding Panelist: Judge James P.Buchele
Domain name Domain name dispute Resolution Policy U.S. Trademarks Service Mark Identical Confusingly similar Conflict or interfere with business or service mark Exclusively identified Precedes use of service mark name Exclusive use of domain name Bad faith use Bad faith registration.
Complainant is the owner of the domain name PARACHUTE.COM in connection with its delivery services business. Respondent, owner of Parachute Computer Services, registered the domain name PARACHUTE.COM and uses it to offer services & products relating to computers and the Internet. Complainant who has attempted to purchase the domain name PARACHUTE.COM requests that said domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant although there is no evidence to show that use of the domain name interferes with Complainants business and service mark or that Parachute is exclusively identified with Complainants business.
Held, Name not Transferred to Complainant.
Although the domain name PARACHUTE.COM is similar to Complainants Parachute mark, Complainant has not shown that the domain name is exclusively identified with the business it operates. Furthermore, the domain name PARACHUTE.COM and the use of the service mark Parachute precede any use of the mark by Complainant. Respondent thus has a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. There is also no evidence that Respondent is misleading customers or tarnishing the Parachute name. Hence, there is no bad faith use or registration of the domain name.
Policies referred to
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Buchele, Panelist:-
PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
Domain Name: PARACHUTE.COM
Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.
Domain Name Registrant: Kristian Jones.
Date of Current Domain Name Registration: February 13,2000
Date Complaint filed: June 1, 2000
Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with
Rule
2(a)[1] and Rule 4(c): June 1, 2000
Due date for a Response: June 21, 2000. Respondent?s Response was filed
by email on June 21, 2000
Prayer of Complainant: Complainant requests that the domain name
parachute.com be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
After reviewing the Complaint and determining it to be in
administrative compliance, the NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
(THE FORUM) forwarded the Complaint to the 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, Inc., the INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) and the Respondent that the administrative proceeding
had commenced. Respondent submitted a response to the Forum within
twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a).
On February 13, 2000 Respondent Kirstian Jones registered the
domain name PARACHUTE.COM with Domain Name Registrar
Network Solutions, Inc., who is the current Registrar of the domain
name
PARACHUTE.COM. By registering the domain name with the
Registrar, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain
name through ICANNs 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. The Complainant is a Delaware Corporation engaged in the business
of
providing delivery services for high value e-commerce purchases to
residential consumers. Complainant through a predecessor corporation,
Webexpress Corporation on January 31, 2000 applied to the United States
Office of Trademarks and Patents for registration of Parachute as a service
mark for use in connection with delivery services. On March 14,
2000 Webexpress registered the domain name PARACHUTE.NET with Network
Solutions, Inc.
2. Respondent is an individual and owner of the domain name
PARACHUTE.COM. Respondent is also the owner of Parachute
Computer Services, Inc., which he incorporated in the State of Texas
on
August 24, 1993. Parachute Computer Services, Inc. first registered
the
domain name PARACHUTE.COM with Network Solutions Inc. in 1994. Through
the corporation, Respondent conducts business under the
Parachute name offering services and products in several areas relating
to computers and the Internet. On July 29, 1993 Respondent through
Parachute Computer Services twice registered Parachute as a service mark
with the United States Office of Patents and Trademarks for use in connection
with various types of computer services.
3. Complainant initiated contacts with Respondent and offered to purchase the domain name PARACHUTE.COM. Although Respondent priced the domain name to Complainant, the evidence is clear that Respondent did not acquire the domain name for the primary purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to another.
4. Respondents current use of the domain name PARACHUTE.COM
does not conflict with or interfere with Complainant?s business or
service
mark.
6. Complainant has not established that the name Parachute is exclusively identified with it or the business that it operates.
7. Respondents use of the service mark Parachute and the domain name
PARACHUTE.COM precedes any use of the service mark name by the Complainant.
8. To prevail, Complainant must establish in the record that Respondent:
a) Registered a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
b) Has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
c) Has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
9. Complainant failed to meet its burden of showing that Respondent
registered and used in bad faith the domain name in violation of
ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph
4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), (iii), or (iv).
CONCLUSIONS
The undersigned arbitrator certifies that he has acted independently
and has no known conflict of interests to serve as Arbitrator in this
proceeding. Having been duly selected, and being impartial, the
undersigned makes the following Conclusions and Decision.
1. Complainant failed to show that he should be granted exclusive
use of
the domain name PARACHUTE.COM as Respondent was making use of it
and the domain name was not available at the time Complainant chose to
commence using the name parachute in connection with its business.
2. Complainant failed to show that Respondent is attempting to mislead
customers or tarnish the name parachute to the detriment of the
Complainant.
3. Complainant failed to show that Respondent has registered or used
the
domain 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
PARACHUTE.COM REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT REMAIN
WITH RESPONDENT.
|