Wolfram Research, Inc. v. Andrew Davis et al.
Claim Number: FA1404001553139




   Complainant: Wolfram Research, Inc. of Champaign, IL, United States of America
Complainant Representative: Wolfram Research, Inc. Noah K Tilton of Champaign, IL, United States of America

   Respondent: CEO Directory Andrew E Davis of Port of Spain, II, Trinidad And Tobago


   Registries: GURU Registry,CEO Registry
   Registrars: Godaddy LLC,101Domain, 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 Examiner in this proceeding.
   Alan L. Limbury, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: April 8, 2014
   Commencement: April 9, 2014
   Response Date: April 10, 2014
   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.


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Respondents: After the Complaint was filed, the Registrar of the <> domain name removed the privacy shield to reveal that the holder of that domain name is Eugene Jakominich Jr. Since Andrew Davis, the registrant of the <> domain name, was the first to respond to the Complaint, he is the Respondent for the case, pursuant to the Forum's Supplemental Rule 5(d)(I). Because the Respondent does not hold both domain names, the Examiner dismisses the domain name <> from this Complaint pursuant to URS Rule 3(c), without making any findings in relation to that domain name.

   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 Respondent 

As regards the domain name <>, Complainant, Wolfram Research, Inc., in seeking to satisfy URS Procedure (i), has exhibited two United States trademark registrations for WOLFRAM, Nos. 09470375 and 3800881, both of which are registered in the name of Wolfram Group LLC. There is no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, of any relationship between Complainant and Wolfram Group LLC and therefore no evidence before the Examiner that Complainant has any rights in the WOLFRAM trademark.

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

It is unnecessary to consider this element.

[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.

It is unnecessary to consider this element.


The Examiner may find 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. 


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.



Alan L. Limbury
Dated: April 12, 2014



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page