WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
VeriSign, Inc. v. Naray Mobile Telecom, Inc.
Case No. D2000-1138
1. The Parties
1.1 The Complainant is VeriSign, Inc., a California corporation, with its principal place of business at 1350 Charleston Road, Mountain View, California 94043, United States.
1.2 The Respondent is Naray Mobile Telecom, Inc., with an address at Naray Building, 7191-1 Yoksam-dong, Kangnam-ku, Seoul, 135-759, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The domain name at issue is "". The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc. of 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Hurndon, Virginia 20170-5139, United States.
3. Procedural History
3.1 The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") received the Complainant�s Complaint on August 29, 2000, (electronic version) and August 30, 2000, (hard copy).
3.2 On September 10, 2000 Network Solutions Inc. transmitted via email to the Center, Network Solutions� Verification Response, confirming that the Respondent is the registrant, that the administrative contact is Mr. Man-seok Choi, Naray Mobile Telecom, Inc. and that the technical contact is Inet Domain Manager, PSINet Korea, Inet BLDG., 738-37 Yoksam-dong, Kangnam-ku, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
3.3 Having verified that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"), the Center on September 19, 2000, sent to the Respondent, with a copy to the Complainant, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding together with copies of the Complaint. This notification was sent by the methods required under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is September 19, 2000.
3.4 The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center sent to the Respondent a Notification of Respondent Default on October 25, 2000.
3.5 On November 8, 2000, Notification of the Appointment of the Administrative Panel was sent to both the Complainant and Respondent by email and courier. The Notification informed the parties that the Administrative Panel would consist of a single Panelist Mr. Gary Biesty.
3.6 The Center transmitted the Case File to the Administrative Panel on November 8, 2000.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant is the proprietor of a US Trademark "Verisign" Registration Number 2,302,350 and associated marks (or applications for registration) in at least 20 other countries, including notably, the Republic of Korea.
4.2 The Complainant is the proprietor of the domain name "".
4.3 The Respondent has registered and holds the domain name "" and sixteen other domain names.
5. Parties� Contentions
5.1 The Complainant asserts:
the Respondent has sought to register and hold a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademarks;
the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the subject domain name; and
the registration and retention of the domain name is in bad faith.
5.2 The Respondent has failed to answer the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Complainant has satisfied the first head of the three tests set out in Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
6.2 The Complainant seeks to satisfy the remaining two tests by asserting that the Respondent holds the domain name passively and that registration of sixteen other domain names demonstrates a bad faith pattern of conduct.
6.3 The Complainant provided persuasive authorities from ICANN decided cases which were considered by the Panel but which could to varying degrees be distinguished on the facts of this case.
6.4 The Panel considered whether the Complainant has satisfied the burden of proof and found that the evidence was not wholly compelling. However the Respondent�s failure to participate in the dispute resolution provided no evidence in rebuttal. Relevant also is the number of other domain names held by the Respondent.
6.5 The Panel recognises that a domain name registrant should not be able to frustrate a bona fide complainant by passive registration and silence which of itself does not manifest bad faith.
6.6 It is clear from the evidence provided by the WIPO Case Manager that the Respondent is aware of these proceedings.
It is also pertinent that a bona fide Respondent may avail themselves of court proceedings within the Policy framework.
After considering the above the Panel finds on balance that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 3 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
7. Decision
7.1 Accordingly the Panel awards the remedy sought by the Complainant and requests and requires that the domain name "" be transferred to the Complainant.
Gary Biesty
Sole Panelist
December 28, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy