Bank Sohar S.A.O.G. v. Syed Hussain
Claim Number: FA0710001104038
Complainant is Bank Sohar S.A.O.G. (“Complainant”), represented by Al
Alawi, of Mansoor Jamal & Co.,
The domain name at issue is <banksohar.com>, registered with Names4Ever, www.names4ever.com.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <banksohar.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BANK SOHAR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <banksohar.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <banksohar.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bank Sohar S.A.O.G., is a duly incorporated
public company in the Sultante of Oman.
Complainant offers various banking services under its BANK SOHAR
mark. Complainant holds a trademark
registration with the Intellectual Property Department of the Sultante of Oman
for the BANK SOHAR mark (Reg. No. 42830 issued
Respondent registered the <banksohar.com>
domain name on
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.
Complainant claims rights in the BANK SOHAR mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark
with the Intellectual Property Department of the Sultante of Oman. See
Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO
Respondent’s <banksohar.com> domain name is
identical to Complainant’s BANK SOHAR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the
disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark, with the addition of
the generic top-level domain “.com,” which is irrelevant for the Policy ¶
4(a)(i) analysis. See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506
(Nat. Arb. Forum
However, it is clear that the domain name at issue was
registered by Respondent on
Accordingly, Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has not been satisfied. Since Complainant has failed in this threshold element, it is not necessary to make findings with respect to the remaining elements of the Policy.
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: December 18, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum