WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. v. Randy Zadra
Case No. D2001-0279
1. Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Bull HN Information Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation located in and doing business at 300 Concord Road, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
The Respondent is Randy Zadra, whose address is 13445 Marble Rock Drive, Chantilly, Virginia, U.S.A.
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is : "". The domain name was registered by Respondent with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) on June 3, 1999.
3. Procedural Background
On February 22, 2001, 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, ("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 commenced on March 1, 2001.
Respondent failed to file a response and a Notification of Respondent�s Default, dated March 27, 2001, was sent by WIPO to Respondent.
The decision of the Panel was due to WIPO on April 23, 2001.
4. Factual Background
Since April 29, 1992, Complainant has used the mark INTEGRIS in connection with systems integration and other global computer related services. Complainant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,818,588 for the mark INTEGRIS. See Complaint, Annex 3. Complainant also owns the domain name "" and operates a website using that name.
Prior to submitting this complaint, Complainant contacted Respondent to provide him with notice of Complainant's rights and to demand the transfer of the domain name. See Complaint, Annex 4. Respondent did not reply to such contact.
As noted above, Respondent registered the domain name in dispute with NSI on June 3, 1999. Respondent's website at that domain name is "under construction." See Complaint, Annex 5. At or about the same time he registered the domain name in dispute, Respondent also registered the domain names "" and "". See Complaint, Annexes 6 and 7. These websites are also inactive. See Complaint, Annexes 8 and 9.
5. Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that the second level of Respondent's domain name is "clearly identical" to Complainant's registered mark. It further argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, in that none of the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4. c. of the Policy is applicable and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the INTEGRIS mark, nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's mark.
Finally, Complainant maintains that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. In support of its assertion, Complainant argues that Respondent acquired the domain name "" in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the INTEGRIS mark in a corresponding domain name and has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
According to Complainant, Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced by its failure to develop a website at the "" domain name and its failure to make any other good faith use of the name.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence presented and determines that Complainant clearly has met all the requirements set forth in paragraph 4.a. of the Policy.
First, there is no question that the domain name in dispute is "clearly identical" to Complainant's INTEGRIS mark. The inclusion of the top-level domain name ".net" in Respondent's domain name is without legal significance.
It is also clear that Complainant, through its use and registration of its INTEGRIS mark, has rights in the mark.
Further, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, within the meaning of paragraph 4c. of the Policy. As noted above, Respondent�s "" website is not active; thus, it is clear that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. There also is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or that any use is noncommercial or "fair."
Finally, the Panel finds evidence of the requisite "bad faith" registration and use of the domain name. Respondent's "passive" holding of the domain name provides support for a determination of "bad faith" registration and use. See Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (February 18, 2000).
The evidence further supports a finding that Respondent acquired the domain name "" in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the INTEGRIS mark in a corresponding domain name and that Respondent engaged in a pattern of such conduct, within the meaning of paragraph 4b(ii) of the Policy. The evidence indicates that Respondent registered multiple domain names, including "" and "", that also resolve into inactive websites. The mark TELECOM CANADA is the subject of several Canadian trademark registrations owned by Bell Canada (see Complaint, Annex 10) and MFS Communications Company, Inc. owns U.S. trademark registrations for the marks MAE-WEST and MAE-EAST. See Complaint, Annexes 11 and 12.
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: April 22, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy