EdgePoint Technology Inc. v. Ejasent
Claim Number: FA0208000117878
PARTIES
Complainant
is EdgePoint Technology Inc.,
Phoenix, AZ (“Complainant”) represented by Brian
M. Turico. Respondent is Ejasent, Mountain View, CA (“Respondent”)
represented by Terence Chong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <edgepoint.com>
and <edgepoint.net>, registered with DomainDiscover & Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Bruce
E. Meyerson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically
on August 6, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August
12, 2002.
On
August 9, 2002 & Aug 14, 2002, DomainDiscover & Network Solutions, Inc.
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <edgepoint.com> and <edgepoint.net> are registered
with DomainDiscover & Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is
the current registrant of the names. DomainDiscover
& Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DomainDiscover
& Network Solutions, Inc. 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
August 19, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September
9, 2002 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 postmaster@edgepoint.com and postmaster@edgepoint.net by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 6, 2002.
On September 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E.
Meyerson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant,
EdgePoint Technology, is involved in the development and implementation of
on-line learning technologies. It
claims that its customers and partners “routinely” go to the disputed site(s)
and then are redirected to Respondent’s site, <ejasent.com>. Complainant contends that there are “no
references to, nor any products or services listed” on Respondent’s site with
the word “edgepoint.”
B. Respondent
Respondent,
Ejasent, Inc., sells products in the utility computing market, and claims that
“edgepoint” is a commonly referred to term for enterprises to “source
information regarding various aspects of utility computing.” Respondent plans to utilize the name
“Edgepoint” in future products and filed a trademark application for “EJASENT
EDGEPOINT” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 13, 2000. Respondent uses the word “edgepoint” in its
marketing literature. Respondent
asserts also that it owns <edgepoint.com>
but not <edgepoint.net>.
FINDINGS
Complainant has not established that it
holds trademark, service mark, or common law rights in the word “edgepoint.”
DISCUSSION
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.”
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)
the 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 fails in establishing rights
in the EDGEPOINT mark; thus, failing to maintain the requisite standard of
proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Although the disputed domain names
contain the word “edgepoint,” and the name of Complainant’s business is
EdgePoint Technolgy, Inc., this alone is insufficient to establish that the
domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which Complainant has rights. See Fiducial v. Bourlionne, No.
D2000-1944 (WIPO Nov. 29, 2000).
Indeed, Complainant has not come forward with any proof that it holds
trademark, service mark or common law rights in the word “edgepoint.” Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider
the remaining elements of Policy 4(a).
DECISION
The Complainant’s request for relief is
denied and the Complaint is dismissed.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page