Innosight Consulting, LLC v. Kun Zhang
Claim Number: FA1106001392898
Complainant is Innosight Consulting, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Sheri S. Mason of Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, P.C., Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Kun Zhang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <inno-sight.com> ("the Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 9, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 9, 2011.
On June 10, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <inno-sight.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement 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 June 16, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 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@inno-sight.com. Also on June 16, 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 July 6, 2011.
On 12 July 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant, a provider of consulting services for businesses since 2001 is the owner of US trade mark registrations for INNOSIGHT for business consulting services and has had the domain name <innosight.com> since 2000. It has built up valuable goodwill in the INNOSIGHT trade mark through use and promotion.
Respondent registered the Domain Name around February 9, 2011. It is virtually identical to the Complainant's mark, the only difference being an insertion of a hyphen in the middle and the generic TLD .com which do not alter the mark sufficiently to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Respondent is using the Domain Name to advertise competing consulting services under the name Innosight Consulting (Beijing) Co. Ltd although the web site is currently under construction. This is not use for bona fide goods and services and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
Respondent has registered the Domain Name to disrupt the business of a competitor. It is advertising the sale of competing services under a confusingly similar mark in order to cause confusion and commercially benefit.
The Complainant's cease and desist letter to the Respondent was returned unopened and no reply was received to an e mail also sent to the Respondent.
B. Respondent
Respondent indicated in an e mail that it would not file any response other than an instruction to proceed with the transfer of the name to the Complainant.
The Complainant has registered trade mark rights in the US for INNOSIGHT and has used the mark for business consultancy services since 2001.
The Respondent's web site for Innosight Consulting (Beijing) Co. Ltd is currently under construction. The Respondent indicated that the transfer to the Complainant should proceed as requested.
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.
The Panelist’s opinion is that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark for the purposes of the Policy and that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the name and has used it in bad faith.
However, it has been held that in circumstances such as this where the Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name and agrees to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the lengthy traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also 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.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. 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.”). As such the Panel will order the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <inno-sight.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal, Panelist
Dated: July 19, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page