National Arbitration Forum




Farhad Parsie v. Whois Guard Protected c/o Bao Shui Chen

Claim Number: FA0707001042478



Complainant is Farhad Parsie (“Complainant”).  Respondent is Whois Guard Protected c/o Bao Shui Chen (“Respondent”), 1187 Nanmatou Rd Building 28 Room 601, Shanghai 200126, CN.




The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Europe Domains LLC.



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.


Mark McCormick as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 18, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 25, 2007.


On July 20, 2007, Europe Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Europe Domains LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Europe Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Europe Domains LLC 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 July 31, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 20, 2007 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 20, 2007.


On August 22, 2007, Complainant filed an additional submission.  On August 24, 2007, Respondent filed an additional submission.  Complainant corresponded with the Forum on August 25, 2007, Respondent replied on August 30, 2007 and Complainant wrote again on August 31, 2007.


On August 24, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mark McCormick as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.




A. Complainant

Complainant contends he established rights in the VIEVIE mark by a United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registration on April 10, 2007.  He also contends he has used the name since 1999.  He asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain name <> is identical or confusingly similar.  He alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and registered it in bad faith.


B. Respondent

Respondent concedes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Respondent alleges the domain name was registered in 2004 for the sale of pottery.  On that basis, Respondent also denies the registration was in bad faith or for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business.


C. Additional Submissions

In his additional submission, Complainant attached letters showing communications to Respondent urging Respondent to cease using the <> domain name and showing Respondent’s reply asserting the trademark was not registered in China where Respondent is located and stating, “If you want the domain BUY IT.  $900.”  Complainant asserts the trademarked name is protected in China under the Madrid protocol.


In his additional submission, Respondent contends the domain name is used for the sale of pottery, which does not infringe Complainant’s trademark protecting use of the name in the sale of clothing.


In subsequent correspondence, Complainant states the pottery company let its domain name registration expire and Respondent registered the domain name and resisted the Complaint under a false pretense of using the domain name for sale of pottery.  Respondent replied that it is in the business of acquiring domains, parking and selling them and that the former use of the <> domain in sale of pottery gives it value.



Complainant has used the name VIEVIE in his business since 1999, registering the name for his clothing business with the USPTO in April 2007.  A pottery company had registered the <> domain name in 2004 and did not renew it when it expired in March 2007.  Respondent registered it and is holding it for sale.  Respondent is in the business of acquiring domain names, parking and selling them.  When Complainant asked Respondent to abandon the disputed domain name, Respondent refused to do so but offered to sell it to Complainant for $900.



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


Respondent admits that the <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIEVIE mark.  The domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).


Rights or Legitimate Interests


The burden is on Respondent to show he has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).  Respondent does not use or plan to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.  No credible evidence exists that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.  Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003). 


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


When Complainant contacted Respondent asking Respondent to give up the disputed domain name, Respondent refused but told Complainant he could buy it for $900.  Respondent admits he is in the business of buying domain names and parks and sells them.   He is not in the business of selling pottery or other goods or services with the <> domain name.  The $900 purchase price plainly exceeded Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs.  This is evidence of bad faith.  The purchase price obviously was designed to take advantage of Complainant’s concern that Respondent would use the domain name to interfere with Complainant’s business.  This is sufficient to establish Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name within the meaning of Policy 4(a)(iii).  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Prijic, FA 112639 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2002).



Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Mark McCormick, Panelist
Dated:  September 7, 2007







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum