Verisoft Bilgi Islem Ticaret ve Sanayi Limited Sirketi v. Kim & Lee
Claim Number: FA0111000101790
Complainant is Verisoft Bilgi Islem Ticaret ve Sanayi Limited Sirketi, Sisli, Istanbul, TURKEY (“Complainant”), of Verisoft Bilgi Islem Ticaret ve Sanayi Limited Sirketi. Respondent is Kim & Lee, ChoGaSamGan, KOREA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <verisoft.com>, registered with Stargate Communications Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on November 5, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 21, 2001.
On November 5, 2001, Stargate Communications Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <verisoft.com> is registered with Stargate Communications Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Stargate Communications Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Stargate Communications Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 28, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 18, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to email@example.com by e-mail.
Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 28, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Respondent ‘s <verisoft.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s VERISOFT mark.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
Respondent regsitered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
No Response was received.
Complainant registered the VERISOFT trademark in Turkey, and has been using the mark in connection with its electronic payment systems, credit and debit cards, as well as its ATM and POS software and hardware products since 1984.
Additionally, Complainant has established a presence on the Internet with its <verisoft.net>, <verisoft.org>, <verisoft.net.tr>, and <verisoft.com.tr> domain names.
Respondent registered the domain name at issue on April 19, 2001. Respondent has not developed the website. Respondent’s web page explains that its website is “delayed because of financial difficulty”.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent’s link to another page displaying a FOR SALE sign indicates its intention to sell the domain name. This does not constitute a noncommercial or fair use and therefore, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel has found that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <verisoft.com> be hereby transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: January 8, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page