NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Wolfram Research, Inc. v. Andrew Davis et al.
Claim Number: FA1404001553139
DOMAIN NAME
<mathematica.guru>
<wolfram.ceo>
PARTIES
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 and REGISTRARS
Registries: GURU Registry,CEO Registry | |
Registrars: Godaddy LLC,101Domain, Inc. |
EXAMINER
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 |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Respondents: After the Complaint was filed, the Registrar of the <mathematica.guru> 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 <wolfram.ceo> 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 <mathematica.guru> 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 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Respondent As regards the domain name <wolfram.ceo>, Complainant, Wolfram Research, Inc., in seeking to satisfy URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 (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 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. It is unnecessary to consider this element.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
It is unnecessary to consider this element. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD 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:
DETERMINATION
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
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page