national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Haas Automation, Inc. v. CNCLISTINGS, LLC / Brian Denny

Claim Number: FA1104001385849

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Haas Automation, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Farah P. Bhatti of Buchalter Nemer, California, USA.  Respondent is CNCListings, LLC / Brian Denny (“Respondent”), represented by Steven F. Schossberger of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Idaho, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <haasballscrews.com>, <haascables.com>, <haascovers.com>, <haasmotors.com>, <haasrotaries.com>, <haasservos.com>, <haasspindles.com>, <haassupport.com>, <haashelp.com>, <haasdeals.com>, and <allhaas.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com and  <haasbearings.com>, <haasinverters.com>, <haaslubrication.com>, <haasmonitors.com>, <haaspowersupplies.com>, <haaspumps.com>, <haasvalves.com>, <haasrentals.com>, <haasmillparts.com>, and <haaslatheparts.com>, registered with New Dream Network, LLC.

 

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.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 26, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 27, 2011.

 

On April 28, 2011, Godaddy.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <allhaas.com>, <haasballscrews.com>, <haascables.com>, <haascovers.com>, <haasmotors.com>, <haasrotaries.com>, <haasservos.com>, <haasspindles.com>, <haassupport.com>, <haashelp.com>, and <haasdeals.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Godaddy.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Inc. registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

Also on April 28, 2011, New Dream Network, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <haasbearings.com>, <haasinverters.com>, <haaslubrication.com>, <haasmonitors.com>, <haaspowersupplies.com>, <haaspumps.com>, <haasvalves.com>, <haasrentals.com>, <haasmillparts.com>, and <haaslatheparts.com> domain names are registered with New Dream Network, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  New Dream Network, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the New Dream Network, LLC registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On May 5, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 25, 2011 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@haasballscrews.com, postmaster@haascables.com, postmaster@haascovers.com, postmaster@haasmotors.com, postmaster@haasrotaries.com, postmaster@haasservos.com, postmaster@haasspindles.com, postmaster@haassupport.com, postmaster@haashelp.com, postmaster@haasdeals.com, postmaster@haasbearings.com, postmaster@haasinverters.com, postmaster@haaslubrication.com, postmaster@haasmonitors.com, postmaster@haaspowersupplies.com, postmaster@haaspumps.com, postmaster@haasvalves.com, postmaster@haasrentals.com, postmaster@haasmillparts.com, postmaster@haaslatheparts.com, and postmaster@allhaas.com.

 

 Also on May 5, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 26, 2011.

 

An Additional Submission was received from the Complainant on May 31, 2011. The Additional Submission complied with Supplemental Rule 7.

 

On June 1, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, Esq, as Panelist.

 

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Haas Inc., asserts that it has owned the protected trademarks and service marks, HAAS, HAAS AUTOMATION, AND HAAS FACTORY OUTLET, as well as the “official domain” <haascnc.com>  and several related domain names for many years. Complainant states that it is an industry leader and well-known provider of computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines, parts, and related services and that it has consistently been using the above marks and domain names along with its licensees and authorized distributors.

Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to its marks and domain names because each of Respondent’s domain names incorporate Complainant’s identical mark in full or in part and then merely adds generic terms. The generic terms all identify parts that are used on Complainant’s machines. Complainant further argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use its marks nor is Respondent using the disputed domains in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names. Furthermore the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent first states that Respondent generally denies all allegations of Complainant not specifically admitted in its response. Respondent also initially asserts that Complainant has misidentified the proper parties to the proceeding and therefore relief should be denied against Respondent Brian Denny. Respondent admits registering the disputed domain names and admits that Complainant’s representations regarding ownership of trademarks, service marks, and domain names is true but contends that Complainant “uses the National Arbitration Forum and threatens and/or files litigation under the Lanham Act inappropriately as a tool to stifle legitimate competition.”

Respondent also contends that Respondent’s “intended nominative fair use and fair use of the word “haas” to advertise and sell replacement parts for Haas branded CNC machines must be considered in the analysis.” Respondent further contends that the disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Respondent additionally argues that the disputed domain names do not incorporate Complainant’s identical trademark “because the word “HAAS” is not being used as a trademark, but merely as an adjective in association with the generic nouns to describe the replacement parts or services to be offered in connection with the customer’s branded HAAS CNC Machine.”

Respondent further contends that Complainant’s arguments regarding Respondent’s lack of rights to use the disputed domain names “was recently rejected under the holding in the case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. Tabari, 610 F. 3d 1171 (9th Cir.2010).”

Respondent states that once it “is free of legal action by Complainant in the National Arbitration Forum or in a United States District Court and cleared to use these domain names, then the hosted website used to make online sales of replacement parts and to offer services to the customer owning a HAAS branded CNC machine…” will plainly include a disclaimer relative to Complainant and Complainant’s marks.

 Respondent also admits not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because “such use has been prevented by Complainant’s aggressive and incessant legal actions.” In accordance with the immediate admissions Respondent agrees that there has been no noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names and that none of the disputed domains that are the subject of the Complaint are affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent additionally agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names nor is Respondent “affiliated with Complainant or been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s trademarks and Respondent denies that it is using Complainant’s trademarks in any of the domain names.”

Respondent contends that it “has a good faith intent to use the domain names in connection with a website used to sell replacement parts for HAAS branded CNC machines” and that the federal court has established as a matter of law Respondent’s right to use certain domain names incorporating the word “haas” without violating the ACPA. Respondent’s assertions are premised on recent litigation between the parties and the results of those proceedings which involved a different set of domain names registered by the Respondent that also incorporated the word “haas”.

Respondent states that it was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names when it registered the disputed domain names but contends that its registration was acceptable based on its need to use the marks to describe the products and services it plans to offer for sale.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant’s additional submissions initially emphasize the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names which reflect CNC Listings, LLC and Brian Denny as the registrants. Complainant also indicates, by exhibit, Brian Denny’s testimony in the previous federal litigation between the parties where he states that he personally registered the disputed domain names at issue in that case which are very similar to the domains names in the present dispute. Complainant asserts that Denny then assigned a company name to coincide with those registrations, and thus Complainant contends that no misrepresentation or improper designation took place in naming Brian Denny along with the company identified in the WHOIS information as a Respondent in the instant proceeding.

Complainant further asserted that as the recognized undisputed owner of the trademarks at issue, it was obligated to police and enforce its trademark rights in order to preserve and maintain their value. Therefore, Complainant was not using the administrative and legal avenues at its disposal to improperly stifle competition. Complainant noted that Respondent has registered a total of thirty-six domain names that have included Complainant’s trademarks. Complainant disputed the relevance of Respondent’s reference to its use of another party’s trademarks in the fashion that it proposed to use Complainant’s marks and also contended that the Toyota v. Tabari case cited was inapplicable to the instant UDRP proceeding.

Complainant emphasized Respondent’s admissions regarding the present nonuse of the domain names and the future intentions regarding prospective use. Complainant also highlighted Respondent’s acknowledgement that it was not authorized to use the marks and contended that Respondent’s assertion that Complainant was using the word “haas” as an adjective amounted to an admission that Complainant was using the word in a trademark fashion.

            Complainant suggested that Respondent use its own company name to identify the goods and services it planned to offer as opposed to making an unauthorized use of the Complainant’s marks under the guise of fair use. Complainant contended that Respondent’s admissions were equivalent to conceding that the domain names were registered in bad faith. 

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Haas Automation, Inc., a California company and owner of several trademarks, service marks, and domain names who brings the instant UDRP action premised particularly on four registered marks and one registered domain name as well as common law rights in the same. Complainant states, and Respondent expressly agrees, that Complainant has been the owner of the marks HAAS and HAAS AUTOMATION for use in association with computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines since 1983 and that the HAAS FACTORY OUTLET mark has been associated with CNC machines and services since 1998. Complainant owns four trademark registrations for the above marks for goods and services relating to CNC’s.

 

Complainant is also the registrant of <haascnc.com>, as well as the owner of other domain names, including <haascnconline.com> and <haascnc.us>, the latter two being domains that Respondent turned over to Complainant without contest as a result of prior UDRP filings by the Complainant. Complainant is a global leader in the production and manufacturing of CNC machines and services and has achieved international recognition in the field.

 

Respondent’s address is listed as being in Meridian, ID. Respondent fails to specifically identify the nature of its business; however, the evidence in this proceeding indicates that Respondents are at least in the business of registering domain names affiliated with the CNC business and planning for their future use. Respondents argue by analogy to some extent that their registration of the domain names in this case should be allowed because they have utilized the same tactics with another company involved in the CNC business. Respondents have registered numerous domain names incorporating the word mark HAAS including those specifically at issue in this proceeding which are <haasballscrews.com>, <haascables.com>, <haascovers.com>, <haasmotors.com>, <haasrotaries.com>, <haasservos.com>, <haasspindles.com>, <haassupport.com>, <haashelp.com>, <haasdeals.com>, and <allhaas.com><haasbearings.com>, <haasinverters.com>, <haaslubrication.com>, <haasmonitors.com>, <haaspowersupplies.com>, <haaspumps.com>, <haasvalves.com>, <haasrentals.com>, <haasmillparts.com>, and <haaslatheparts.com>.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of Complainant’s registered marks and domain names believing that they could do so without fear of reprisal due to the U.S. trademark principle of fair use. Respondent’s assertion that Complainant does not use its marks in a trademark fashion is without support. Respondent’s other arguments regarding fair use, their planned use, and allegations of Complainant’s misuse of the legal tools available to protect their registered marks lack consistency and strain the bounds of credibility.

 

Complainant has vigilantly monitored its marks and have filed numerous administrative and judicial actions against the Respondent to prohibit the Respondent from going forward with plans to use Complainant’s trademarks to facilitate Respondent’s alleged business plan to offer replacement parts and repair services for HAAS branded CNC machines independent of any affiliation with the Complainant.

 

The parties have participated in prior UDRP actions which Respondent did not contest and transferred the disputed domains to the Complainant. The parties have also previously been involved in a U.S. federal court action by Complainant against Respondent alleging violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) with a jury ruling in part for both parties as to the fifteen domain names involved in that dispute.

 

The panel is not bound by the findings of the parties’ past federal litigation especially since the twenty-one domains in the present dispute, while following the same pattern, are different than those involved in the litigation. Nor is the panel bound by the decision of the 9th Circuit in Toyota v. Tabari or the other cases cited by the parties as potentially controlling the outcome of this proceeding. While judicial decisions are valid guidance to assist panelists in fulfilling their required duty to avoid a manifest disregard of the law, neither national cases nor prior arbitration decisions act as binding precedent. The WIPO Overview 2.0 notes that the UDRP does not operate on a strict doctrine of precedent, although panels do strive for consistency with matters involving similar facts. The Overview also states in pertinent part:

Paragraph 15 (a) of the UDRP provides that a panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the UDRP, the UDRP Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Rooted in generally-recognized principles of trademark law, and designed to operate in the context of the world wide web, the decision framework of the UDRP generally does not require resort to concepts or jurisprudence specific to national law (other than with respect to the question of whether trademark rights exist).

While panelists ideally aspire to a consistent application of the UDRP policies, it is noteworthy that the policies are not law and they in fact differ from laws, such as the ACPA, in certain important elements and interpretations. The UDRP further provides in Paragraph 4(k) for an opportunity for appeal to a judicial body where the parties can dispute the application of the UDRP rules to the circumstances in conflict. Such action may conceivably yield a different ruling than that received in a previously disposed of, yet related, ACPA proceeding, but the panel acknowledges that there are substantive procedural issues involved, such as questions of res judicata and collateral estoppel, that may call for attention. However the response to that call lies in domestic court cases as those issues fall outside the administrative boundaries of the UDRP.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of 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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)  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 argues that it has rights in the HAAS (Reg. No. 2,573,776), HAAS AUTOMATION (Reg. No. 2,573,775), and HAAS FACTORY OUTLET (Reg. No. 3,514,894) marks by virtue of its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Panel finds that the registrations are sufficient to prove Complainant’s rights in those marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy              ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HAAS AUTOMATION mark because each disputed domain name only deletes the term “automation,” attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” and adds one or more of the following generic terms: “all,” “deals,” “help,” “support,” “spindles,” “servos,” “rotaries,” “motors,” “covers,” “cables,” “ball,” “screws,” “lathe,” “parts,” “mill,” “rentals,” “valves,” “pumps,” “power,” “supplies,” “monitors,” “lubrication,” “inverters,” and/or “bearings.” The Panel finds that deleting a term from Complainant’s mark and replacing it with a different generic term does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark); see also WestJet Air Ctr., Inc. v. W. Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, where the complainant holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark). The Panel further finds that the presence of the gTLD also has no distinguishing effect. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).

 

Although Respondent argues that its registrations and plans should be covered by the principle of fair use (and particularly nominative fair use) the panel is not persuaded that the particular domain names in dispute are necessary in the manner that Respondent urges and thus finds fair use inapplicable. The panel recognizes that one servicing Complainant’s machines may need to refer to those machines in notifying others of their business, but the Respondent is not limited to the domain names selected in seeking to meet that need. The Complainant’s suggestion that Respondent use its business name alone or in some manner in its desired domain names is more persuasive as doing so would eliminate potential confusion without automatically precluding references to Complainant or other providers in the CNC market.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered HAAS mark(s) pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 The Panel notes that a Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Complainant has satisfied this requirement.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that Complainant has not consented to Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark. Respondent expressly agrees with Complainant’s assertions. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “CNCLISTINGS, LLC / Brian Denny,” which the Panel finds has no facial association with the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore agrees with the parties and finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and accordingly lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”).  

 

Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain names currently resolve to inactive websites without any original content. Respondent agrees with Complainant’s allegations in this regard as well. The Panel thus finds that this failure to actively use the disputed domain names supports the conclusion that Respondent has failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy  ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

Further because Complainant has licensed and authorized affiliates as well as provides services for its own machines and a product bearing its marks Respondent’s proposed use would be in direct competition with Complainant and could not therefore be deemed a fair or legitimate non-commercial use of the domain names.

 

Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent has registered twenty-one disputed domain names containing Complainant’s HAAS mark(s) that are the subject of this proceeding. In addition, Complainant alleges, and Respondent acknowledges, that Respondent has previously been the Respondent in at least two other UDRP proceedings brought by Complainant regarding the <haascnconline.com> and <hasscnc.us> domain names, both of which were ordered transferred to Complainant by the National Arbitration Forum. Furthermore the parties have been in litigation regarding Respondent’s registration of fifteen disputed domain names incorporating Complainant’s HAAS mark(s). The Panel finds that both this current instance of registering multiple infringing domain names and Respondent’s history of infringement on Complainant’s mark indicates that Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants); see also Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent previously used the disputed domain names to redirect consumers to Respondent’s <cncpros.net> domain name, which subsequently redirected them again to Respondent’s <fadalcnc.com> domain name. Complainant asserts that the website offers the products of Complainant’s competitors. Complainant also asserts that the resolving websites from the disputed domain names featured information about Respondent’s competing business providing Complainant’s HAAS parts. The Panel finds that these uses of the disputed domain names disrupt Complainant’s business by facilitating competition with Complainant and therefore demonstrate bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business.  The Panel may decide that this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. MCM Tours, Inc., FA 444510 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2005) (“The Respondent is a travel agency and thus operates in the same business as the Complainant. The parties can therefore be considered as competitors. The Panel thus finds that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii).”).

 

Complainant contends that after being contacted by Complainant, Respondent changed the content of the resolving websites so that the websites now merely display a message that the website is “coming soon,” displaying no original content. Respondent agrees that it is not using the domain names, although respondent blames its nonuse on Complainants efforts at enforcements of its trademark rights. The Panel finds that Respondent’s current failure to actively use the disputed domain names signals bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).

 

Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <haasballscrews.com>, <haascables.com>, <haascovers.com>, <haasmotors.com>, <haasrotaries.com>, <haasservos.com>, <haasspindles.com>, <haassupport.com>, <haashelp.com>, <haasdeals.com>, <haasbearings.com>, <haasinverters.com>, <haaslubrication.com>, <haasmonitors.com>, <haaspowersupplies.com>, <haaspumps.com>, <haasvalves.com>, <haasrentals.com>, <haasmillparts.com>, <haaslatheparts.com>,  and <allhaas.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Prof. Darryl C. Wilson, Esq Panelist

Dated:  June 15, 2011

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page