national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

InCube, Incorporated v. Arie Schinnar

Claim Number: FA0708001054980

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is InCube, Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Andrew Farquharson, of InCube, Incorporated, 1390 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025.  Respondent is Arie Schinnar (“Respondent”), Wharton 3020 SHDH, U. of PA, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6372.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

 

The domain name at issue is <incube.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc.

 

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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 2, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 7, 2007.

 

On August 3, 2007, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <incube.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 August 14, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 4, 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 postmaster@incube.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 12, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

 

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

 

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <incube.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s INCUBE mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <incube.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <incube.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant, InCube Incorporated, was formed in 1995 and comprises a commercially active medical device laboratory and venture fund providing a range of services and financing to emerging and start-up companies.  According to the undisputed record, Complainant is regarded as one of North America’s oldest and most successful medical device incubators.  Complainant has been responsible for a number of notable successes, including the first implantable cardiac defibrillator, EEG monitoring, minimally invasive treatment of enlarged prostate, embolic protection during catheterization as well as a range of other products that have become standards of care.

 

Respondent registered the <incube.com> domain name on September 16, 1999.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that does not have an active use.

 

DISCUSSION

 

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 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.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)   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 is not required to own a trademark application to establish rights in the INCUBE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (“The Policy does not require that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist.”).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the INCUBE mark through continuous and extensive use of the mark in connection with its medical device laboratory and venture fund since 1995.  Complainant is well known in the medical community for a number of breakthroughs in medical procedures and devices.  Therefore, Complainant’s INCUBE mark has acquired secondary meaning sufficient to establish common law rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established).

 

Furthermore, the disputed domain name, <incube.com>, is identical to Complainant’s INCUBE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety.  The disputed domain name differs from the mark only in that it adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” onto the end of the mark.  However, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names, the addition of a gTLD to Complainant’s mark is irrelevant under the Policy.  Thus, the Panel finds that the <incube.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s INCUBE mark, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <incube.com> domain name.  Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the initial burden of proving this allegation.  However, once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under the Policy.  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).

 

Respondent’s failure to answer the Complainant allows the Panel to presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See American Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”).  Nevertheless, the Panel will still examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

Nothing in the evidence, including the WHOIS information, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <incube.com> domain name.  According to Complainant, Respondent is not authorized to use the INCUBE mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <incube.com> 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) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

According to the evidence, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that has no active use.  The Panel concludes that there is no bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where Respondent has failed to actively use a disputed domain name and where no evidence has been provided showing demonstrable preparations for use of the disputed domain name. See America. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA 204148 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent's passive holding of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.”); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interests can be found when the respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent’s registration and failure to make active use of the <incube.com> domain name along with a failure to provide evidence showing preparations to use the disputed domain name is representative of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two-year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated:  September 25, 2007

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum