WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. Alex Foresman
Case No. D2001-1380
1. The Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America. The Respondent is Alex Foresman, whose purported address is 234 Chestdrive Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is as follows: "". The domain name was registered by Respondent with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) on September 5, 2000.
3. Procedural Background
On October 12, 2000, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center received from Complainant a complaint for decision in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 ("Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Supplemental Rules).
The Complaint was filed in compliance with the requirements of the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, payment was properly made, the administrative panel was properly constituted, and the panelist submitted the required Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.
The instant Administrative Proceeding was commenced on October 30, 2000.
Respondent did not file a Response, and a "Notification of Respondent Default," dated November 21, 2000, was forwarded by WIPO to Respondent.
The decision of the Panel was due to WIPO on or before December 10, 2000.
4. Factual Background
Since at least 1987, Complainant has used the letters "SGI" as a trademark in connection with its leading edge hardware and software technology in the area of high-end graphics workstations. Complainant has filed applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to register the marks SGI and SGI (stylized). These applications (Serial Nos. 75/574,897 and 75/609,926) are still pending before the PTO. See Complaint, Annex 3. In addition, Complainant has registered the SGI and SGI (stylized) marks in more than twenty (20) countries worldwide, including Australia, Ireland, Israel, Korea, and Venezuela. Complainant also owns the domain name .
Since 1994, Complainant has used its marks on its web site to identify its products. See Complaint, Annex 5.
Respondent's web site features on top the letters "sgi" with the "TM" symbol. It includes information regarding current products and indicates that "All SGI Systems come with 1 years standart (sic) warranty. And we provide 21 days money back warranty." See Complaint, Annex 6. Respondent has not obtained Complainant's permission or consent to use the mark SGI in any manner and is not a licensee of Complainant.
Complainant attempted to contact Respondent and has sent "cease and desist" letters to listed addresses. Through investigation, Complainant has determined that the addresses provided by Respondent on its web site are false.
5. Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that the domain name in issue is nearly identical to its SGI mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel has carefully weighed the evidence presented and determines that Complainant clearly has met the requirements set forth in Para 4.a. of the Policy.
There is no question that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. The domain name incorporates, in full, Complainant's SGI mark. The addition to the disputed domain name of the generic top-level domain ".com" and the descriptive term "systems" is without legal significance.
It is also clear that Complainant, through its long use of, and registrations covering, the SGI mark, has rights in the mark.
There also is no evidence that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name.
There is evidence to support a determination of "bad faith" registration and use. The Panel determines that Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site or of a product on Respondent's web site, within the meaning of Para 4.b.(iv) of the Policy. As noted above, Respondent not only uses a confusingly similar domain name but its web site also features Complainant's mark and implies that Respondent's products are covered by Complainant's warranty.
7. Decision
In view of the above, the Panel GRANTS Complainant's request for transfer to it of the domain name "".
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Panelist
Dated: December 8, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy