Phase Forward Incorporated v. Noel Adams
individually and d/b/a Phase Forward
Claim Number: FA0307000167920
PARTIES
Complainant
is Phase Forward Incorporated,
Waltham, MA (“Complainant”) represented by M.
Kelly Tillery, of Leonard, Tillery & Sciolla,
LLP. Respondent is Noel Adams individually and d/b/a
Phase Forward, San Fransisco, CA (“Respondent”) represented by Matthew Stavish, of Liniak Berenato &
White.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <phaseforward.net>,
registered with Intercosmos Media Group,
Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he 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.
Dennis
A. Foster as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on July 3, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on July 7, 2003.
On
July 7, 2003, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <phaseforward.net>
is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a
Directnic.Com 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
July 11, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 31,
2003 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@phaseforward.net by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 31, 2003.
An
Additional Submission was timely received from Complainant and was determined
to be complete on August 6, 2003.
An
Additional Submission was timely received from Respondent and was determined to
be complete on August 11, 2003.
On August 13, 2003 pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster
as Panelist.
The Panel notes that the Respondent filed an application
for a United States Trademark registration for PHASEFORWARD in international
class no. 35 on October 1, 2002 (Response Exhibit 3). The Complainant filed a
Protest and a Notice of Opposition to
the Respondent’s trademark application on February 26, 2003 (Complaint Exhibits
L and M).
At p.8 of the Complaint, the Complainant states that its
Opposition “[set]forth substantially the same facts which have been listed in
this Complaint.” At Exhibit N of the
Complaint, the Complainant has exhibited a letter from the United States
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dated June 23, 2003 that gives a detailed
schedule for the Opposition proceeding (No. 91156778) that will lead to a
decision on whether the Respondent may register PHASEFORWARD as a
trademark. The Panel notes that, in its
letter, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board projects that Opposition No.
91156778 will run through the summer of 2004.
In its Response,
at p.2, the Respondent also informed the Panel, per paragraph 5(b)(vi) of the
Rules, that this related legal proceeding, Opposition No. 91156778, was in
progress.
The Panel is guided by paragraph 18(a) of the Rules
which provides:
In the
event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative
proceeding in respect of a domain name dispute that is the subject of the
complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or
terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.
Based on this provision, the Panel has decided to
terminate this proceeding. The Panel
believes this Policy proceeding substantially duplicates the ongoing Opposition
involving the Complainant and the Respondent before the United States Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board. That
Opposition, once resolved, should also clarify the parties’ respective rights
to the disputed domain name, <phaseforward.net>.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
without predjudice.
.
Dennis A. Foster, Panelist
Dated: September 3, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page