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 Complainant’s business and service mark or that “Parachute” is exclusively identified with Complainant’s business.

Held, Name not Transferred to Complainant.

Although the domain name ‘PARACHUTE.COM’ is similar to Complainant’s ‘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 ICANN’s 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. Respondent’s 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
ICANN’s 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.