Boston Dental
v. Richard D. Ferris
Claim Number: FA0111000101824
PARTIES
The Complainant is Fred G. Boustany d/b/a Boston Dental, Boston, MA (“Complainant”). The Respondent is Richard D. Ferris, Fairfax, VA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bostondental.com>, registered with Easyspace Hostmaster.
PANEL
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.
Panelist is Judge Karl V. Fink (Retired).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on November 9, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 9, 2001.
On November 21, 2001, Easyspace Hostmaster confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <bostondental.com> is registered with Easyspace Hostmaster and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Easyspace Hostmaster has verified that Respondent is bound by the Easyspace Hostmaster 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 21, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 11, 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 postmaster@bostondental.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 10, 2001.
On
December 21, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel,
the Forum appointed Judge Karl V. Fink (Retired) as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The use of <bostondental.com> is identical to Complainant’s trademark and is confusing to customers seeking care at his practice since 1982 under this same name.
Boston Dental in any combination is Complainant’s trademark and represents his business logo and identity since 1982.
There is no reason for the Respondent to register all combinations of Boston Dental except to make money by selling to Complainant or others such as a competitor. Respondent obviously acted in bad faith, with the intention to disrupt Complainant’s business and confuse his patients and tarnish his trademark.
Complainant sued in federal court and won against Boston Dental Group in 1998-99 and made them stop using the name Boston Dental.
Everybody recognizes and associates the name of Boston Dental and Fred Boustany.
Complainant’s relationship with Mass Dental Society is 15 years old. He certifies all Dental Assistants in Radiology. They all know him as Boston Dental.
Boston Dental is also part of the famous Apex program at Boston University where 4 dental interns rotate at Boston Dental for 3 months all year round to observe and learn dental practice management in a private practice setting.
B. Respondent
Respondent denies Complainant’s allegations and Complainant’s characterization of intentions of the Respondent in the acquisition and intended use of domain name <bostondental.com>.
The Respondent is a practicing oral surgeon in northern Virginia and has no intention of practicing dentistry in any other location.
The Respondent acquired <bostondental.com> together with other national metro (location) oriented dental domain names – domains which Respondent is currently organizing and intends to use in a national on-line dental information network.
“Bostondental.com” is not identical to “Boston Dental”.
Respondent acquired the domain name on October 14, 1998, more than a year before Complainant applied for a trademark on November 22, 1999, and two years before the trademark was registered on January 2001.
Respondent states his first knowledge of the existence of Complainant came through a letter from Complainant approximately two months ago.
C. Additional Submissions
None.
FINDINGS
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name should be transferred.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
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
Complainant
has proven this element.
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
Complainant has proven this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has proven this element.
DECISION
The panel
directs that the domain name <bostondental.com> be transferred to
Complainant.
Judge Karl V. Fink (Retired), Panelist
December 27, 2001
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page