EdgePoint Technology Inc. v. Ejasent

Claim Number: FA0208000117878




Complainant is EdgePoint Technology Inc., Phoenix, AZ (“Complainant”) represented by Brian M. Turico.  Respondent is Ejasent, Mountain View, CA (“Respondent”) represented by Terence Chong.




The domain names at issue are <> and <>, registered with DomainDiscover & Network Solutions, 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.


Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.




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 <> and <> 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 and 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.




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




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, <>.  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 <> but not <>.




Complainant has not established that it holds trademark, service mark, or common law rights in the word “edgepoint.”







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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


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). 




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