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 <bainbridge.biz>,
registered with Catalog.com, 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 <bainbridge.biz>.
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.
The
Complainant has not clearly established which legal entity has which rights,
and on what basis.
The
Complainant has not clearly established which legal entity has which rights,
and on what basis.
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