Numerix LLC v. Dagmar Brebock

Claim Number: FA1906001846731



Complainant is Numerix LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Miriam Guinane, New York, USA.  Respondent is Dagmar Brebock (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Google Llc.



The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 6, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 6, 2019.


On June 7, 2019, Google Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Google Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google Llc 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 19, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 9, 2019 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  Also on June 19, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.


Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On July 15, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in NUMERIX.COM and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. 


Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.


Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.    Complainant is a software developer;


2.    the disputed domain name was registered on May 20, 2019 and has been used to send an email which passed itself off as having originated from Complainant’s accounting department.



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.


In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding based on Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  That said, Complainant carries the onus to prove all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and in this case the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish the first element for the following reasons. 


Trademark/ service mark rights - Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry - a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.


It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum Jun. 19, 2006) holding that “Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”).  There is no evidence that Complainant holds a trademark registration.  Nonetheless, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights and a governmental registration is not required so long as Complainant can establish common law rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) finding that “The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.”).   However, to establish common law rights in a mark, Complainant  must prove that through public use the mark has generated a secondary meaning (see, for example, Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the GOODWIN mark through evidence of “long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark’s having acquired secondary meaning.”).


Proof of such common law rights becomes the critical aspect of these proceedings and in that regard the single submission in the Complaint is that:


Our domain name has been registered and in use since at least 1998 with corporate formation in 1996.   


The only evidence related to that submission is a copy of WhoIs record for Complainant’s domain name <> showing its creation on January 10, 1996.  There is no evidence of use of the asserted trademark.


The Panel is not satisfied that the Complaint supports the existence of common law rights.  Proof of the existence and continuing registration of a domain name is not proof of a common law trademark corresponding with that domain name.  It says nothing of use or reputation.  The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to show trademark rights in a term which is either identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

No findings required (see, for example, Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary; see also Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

No findings required.



Having failed to establish one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.



Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  July 25, 2019



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page