Ravinder Singh v. Dalkia

Claim Number: FA0204000110864



Complainant is Ravinder Singh, Skelmersdale, UNITED KINGDOM (“Complainant”).  Respondent is Dalkia, Saint Andre, FRANCE (“Respondent”).



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



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.


Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 26, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 14, 2002.


On May 20, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 10, 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 July 9, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 asserts to have a trademark that is identical to <>. 


Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <>.


Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered the <> domain name in bad faith.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response.



Complainant asserts that it has a “trademark or service mark” but fails to identify this trademark or service mark.  Furthermore, Complainant fails to present any evidence that it has a business that provides goods or services under this unidentified mark. 


Respondent registered the disputed domain name <> on March 27, 2002.



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.


Due to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these STOP proceedings, the Panel will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where applicable.


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

Complainant asserts to have rights in a trademark or service mark identical to <>.  However, Complainant never identifies this trademark or service mark, nor does Complainant present any evidence of this mark’s actual existence.  Furthermore, Complainant fails to present any evidence of the secondary meaning this mark has accrued in relation to Complainant’s goods or services.  As a result, the Panel cannot find that Complainant has rights in the <> domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).


Because Respondent failed to respond there is insufficient evidence to determine whether Respondent has rights to the <> under the STOP Policy.



Having failed to establish a necessary element required under the Start-Up Trademark Opposition Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby denied.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Complaint be dismissed.  There are no further challenges pending against this domain name under the STOP Policy.




                                                                                                Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist

                                                                                                            Dated:  July 18, 2002




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page