Pervasive Software Inc. v. Domain Research and Sales
Claim Number: FA0201000104106
Complainant is Pervasive Software, Inc., Austin, TX (“Complainant”) represented by Leslie C. McKnew, of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP. Respondent is Domain Research and Sales, Radviliskis, LITHUANIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pervasive.net>, registered with Dotster, 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.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on January 24, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 28, 2002.
On January 30, 2002, Dotster, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <pervasive.net> is registered with Dotster, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dotster, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster, 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 January 31, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 20, 2002 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 February 26, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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 Respondent to Complainant.
Respondent’s <pervasive.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s PERVASIVE mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
No Response was submitted.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations incorporating the PERVASIVE mark in over 24 different countries, including its registrations of PERVASIVE (Reg. No. 2,516,028) and PERVASIVE SOFTWARE (Reg. No. 2,296,316) on the United States Principal Register on December 11, 2001 and November 30, 1999 respectively. Previous to the U.S. registration of this mark, Complainant had been using the mark continuously since July1996, and had established common law rights in the PERVASIVE mark.
Since 1996, Complainant has promoted its marks in over 80 countries worldwide, and currently serves a worldwide network of 10,000 businesses. As evidence of the widespread recognition of the PERVASIVE marks, Complainant has received many awards including listings in the 2001 DM Review Top 100, which recognizes the top 100 business intelligence vendors, and FORBE’S ASAP list of 1999’s 100 Most Dynamic Technology Companies, in which Complainant ranked third.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 2, 2001. Respondent listed the registrant’s name as “For SALE” and stated that “This Domain Name is FOR SALE, E-Mail us your offer,” then listed its contact e-mail address at offers@NameRegister.com. Moreover, Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale on the opening page of the website associated with the disputed domain name.
Respondent has a history of registering famous marks as domain names and offering to sell them to parties for no less than $550. Examples of Respondent’s pattern of registering infringing domain names include the following domain names: <moneyopolis.org>, <singtel-mobile.com>, <segod.com>, and <webmolecules.com>, among others.
Finally, Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to pornographic and adult-orientated websites.
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 and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) 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; and
(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 established common law rights in the PERVASIVE mark through its continuous use of the mark since 1996, as well as legal rights due to its subsequent registration of the PERVASIVE mark with the USPTO on December 11, 2001.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Because Respondent did not submit a Response to this Complaint, the Panel may infer that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the primary intention of selling it; as this is not considered a bona fide offering of goods, Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling the domain name).
There is no evidence, and Respondent, known as “Domain Research and Sales”, has not come forward to provide any, that it is commonly known by the “PERVASIVE” mark or by “<pervasive.net>.” As a result, Respondent has not demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 should be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pervasive.net> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: February 27, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page