MySQL AB v. Mosfer aljmel et al.
Claim Number: FA1501001600020




   Complainant: MySQL AB of Uppsala, Sweden
Complainant Representative: Steven M. Levy of Philadelphia, PA, United States of America

   Respondent: Individual Mosfer M Aljmel of khamis mushait, --, Saudi Arabia


   Registries: Top Level Design, LLC
   Registrars: Go Daddy, LLC


   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 Examiner in this proceeding.
   David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: January 15, 2015
   Commencement: January 16, 2015
   Response Date: January 17, 2015
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant owns, promotes, and makes extensive use globally of its TM MySQL and domain <>. MySQL is an open-source database management product, well known globally to developers, programmers and website designers. Complainant first registered its MySQL TM with the USPTO on December 9, 2003. But for the addition of the TLD '.wiki', the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant's TM.

[URS] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Disputed Domain Name redirects through a sequence of commercial websites, including a pay-per-click site. Respondent is not known by the name MySQL and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the TM. The Examiner finds that Respondent's use of the TM is not 'fair use' or legitimate non-commercial use.

[URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent represents that it chose the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of building a 'Semantic Web' encyclopedia Wiki: 'My Semantic Query Language World Internet Knowledge Index'. Complainant alleges that its TM has no generic or descriptive meaning and that Respondent could only have selected it based upon its knowledge of Complainant's TM, which Respondent sought to use to mislead and confuse the public, to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain.


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

The Examiner finds as follows:

  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

Respondent presents no argument or evidence which might support its assertion. The Examiner finds no basis for the assertion.


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:



David L. Kreider Esq,
Dated: January 19, 2015



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page