National Arbitration Forum




Micro Motion Inc. v. Demand Domains, Inc.

Claim Number: FA0802001153703



Complainant is Micro Motion Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathleen DS. Ryan, of The Ollila Law Group, LLC, Colorado, USA.  Respondent is Demand Domains, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Christina G. Radocha, Washington, USA.




The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Enom2 Inc. (“Enom”).



The undersigned, David H Tatham, 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.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on February 26, 2008; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 27, 2008.


On February 27, 2008, Enom confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name was registered with it and that the Respondent was the current registrant of the name.  Enom has verified that Respondent is bound by its 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 March 13, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, setting a deadline of April 2, 2008 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 2, 2008.



On April 7, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Mr. David H Tatham as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant is the proprietor of three US registrations for the trademark MICRO MOTION, two of them in a logo form, dating 1981, 1984, and 2003 respectively. Complainant also filed brief details of registrations for MICRO MOTION in 38 countries as well as in the European Union. Complainant also owns a number of domain names incorporating the name ‘micromotion.’ Complainant manufactures and sells flow meters under the name MICRO MOTION which are sold worldwide, and have been for many years. As a result, it claims that it is well known around the world as a source for flow meters.


Complainant alleges that its name and trademark are confusingly similar to the disputed domain name <>.


Complainant further alleges that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain name, and has acted in bad faith for the following reasons –

·        The site at the disputed domain name is, essentially, a generic portal for a variety of goods and services. The categories on the site lead a visitor to lists of sponsored links to pay-per-click advertising. Some of the categories lead a visitor to third party websites belonging to Complainant’s competitors.

·        Respondent’s sole purpose in registering the domain name was to trade on the recognition of Complainant’s trademarks and to deliberately increase internet traffic to its website, presumably for financial benefit.

·        Respondent’s website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, and Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in a legitimate non-commercial or fair use manner.

·        There is no reasonable possibility that Respondent chose the disputed domain name by chance, and it is clear that Respondent is intentionally trading on the fame of Complainant’s well-known trademark MICRO MOTION, in a deliberate attempt to typosquat.

·        Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its name, and Respondent is not actually or commonly known by the disputed domain name.


B. Respondent

In a short response, Respondent states that when it assumed registration of the disputed domain name it had no knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights. Furthermore, since it has a policy against registering or holding domain names in derogation of legitimate rights holders, on receiving the Complainant it instructed its counsel to contact Complainant’s counsel and to offer immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. There was a telephone discussion between the two counsel, but, it would appear that there was no further communication. Nevertheless, Respondent repeats its desire to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, stresses that it has acted in good faith throughout, and requests the Panel to dismiss these proceedings.



Complainant is the owner of the trademark MICRO MOTION which was first registered in the USA in 1981 and is now widely registered elsewhere in the world. It manufactures and sells flow meters around the world under this name.


Respondent has stated that it is willing for the disputed domain name to be transferred to Complainant



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.


Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the disputed domain name, and indeed has indicated that it will consent to a judgment in favour of Complainant for its transfer. In similar circumstances, Panels in several earlier Decisions have foregone the traditional UDRP analysis and ordered the immediate transfer of the domain names, namely Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Development, FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the Respondent stipulated to the transfer); Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Elmer Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).


In this case, the Panel sees no reason why it should depart from the course adopted in all of the above three decisions, or why it should deny Respondent’s request.



Having established that Complainant’s request for a transfer of the disputed domain name is not contested by Respondent, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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










David H Tatham, Panelist
Dated: April 17, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum