Bainbridge Inc. v. Bainbridge Inc.

Claim Number: FA0204000110786



Complainant is Bainbridge Inc., San Diego, CA (“Complainant”) represented by Carlos Arias.  Respondent is Bainbridge Inc., San Diego, CA (“Respondent”) represented by Carlos Arias.



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



The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Sandra Franklin as Panelist.



Complainant has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint, as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (IP) Claim Form with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel.  As an IP Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).


Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 23, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 23, 2002.


On May 14, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 3, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).


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 June 25, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as the single 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 STOP Rules.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.



Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant contends that Complainant and Respondent are the same entity, though they are not listed in the Complaint exactly the same.  The Complainant is Lei Lani Yap Imperial, which also signs as “webmaster”, and the Respondent is simply Bainbridge.  Complainant states that it owns a service mark identical to the domain name in dispute.  Complainant also states that the Respondent has all rights in the domain name <>.  

Complainant lists two service marks but does not clearly state what legal entity owns the marks. 


B. Respondent

No response was filed.  Complainant instead argues against itself in favor of Respondent.



The Panel finds that the status quo must be maintained until it can be clearly demonstrated by the correct Complainant that it has rights, that Respondent does not have rights and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.



Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 STOP Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the STOP Rules.


Paragraph 4(a) of the STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:


(1) the domain name is identical 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 or is being used in bad faith.


Under the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form.  Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service mark in which a Complainant asserts rights.  The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant asserts rights.


Complainant’s Rights in the Mark

The Complainant has not clearly established which legal entity has which rights, and on what basis.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not clearly established which legal entity has which rights, and on what basis.


Registration or Use in Bad Faith

            The Panel finds no evidence of bad faith registration.



The Panel denies the relief requested by Complainant and determines that subsequent challenges under the Policy against this domain name shall be permitted.



Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  July 9, 2002


Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page