P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA

Parachute, Inc.,


Kristian Jones,

Forum File No.: FA0006000094947

The above-entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on

July 12, 2000 before the undersigned Arbitrator on the Complaint of Parachute, Inc., hereafter “Complainant”, against Kristian Jones, hereafter “Respondent”.  Complainant appears by Todd G. Vare, Attorney of Indianapolis, Indiana. Respondent appears by Steven R. Hake, Attorney of Austin, Texas. Upon the written submitted record, the following decision is made:



Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.

Domain Name Registrant: Kristian Jones.

Date of Current Domain Name Registration: February 13,2000

Date Complaint filed: June 1, 2000

Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule

2(a)[1] and Rule 4(c): June 1, 2000

Due date for a Response: June 21, 2000. Respondent’s Response was filed by email on June 21, 2000


Prayer of Complainant: Complainant requests that the domain name “parachute.com” be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

            After reviewing the Complaint and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM (THE FORUM) forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c).  In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions, Inc., the INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) and the Respondent that the administrative proceeding had commenced.  Respondent submitted a response to the Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a).

            On February 13, 2000 Respondent Kirstian Jones registered the domain name ”PARACHUTE.COM” with Domain Name Registrar Network Solutions, Inc., who is the current Registrar of the domain name “PARACHUTE.COM”.  By registering the domain name with the Registrar, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.


            The undisputed evidence establishes that:


1. The Complainant is a Delaware Corporation engaged in the business of providing delivery services for high value e-commerce purchases to residential consumers.  Complainant through a predecessor corporation, Webexpress Corporation on January 31, 2000 applied to the United States Office of Trademarks and Patents for registration of “Parachute” as a service mark for use in connection with delivery services. On March 14, 2000 Webexpress registered the domain name “PARACHUTE.NET” with Network Solutions, Inc.

2. Respondent is an individual and owner of the domain name “PARACHUTE.COM”. Respondent is also the owner of Parachute Computer Services, Inc., which he incorporated in the State of Texas on August 24, 1993. Parachute Computer Services, Inc. first registered the domain name PARACHUTE.COM with Network Solutions Inc. in 1994. Through the corporation, Respondent conducts business under the “Parachute” name offering services and products in several areas relating to computers and the Internet.  On July 29, 1993 Respondent through Parachute Computer Services twice registered “Parachute” as a service mark with the United States Office of Patents and Trademarks for use in connection with various types of computer services.

3. Complainant initiated contacts with Respondent and offered to purchase the domain name ”PARACHUTE.COM”.  Although Respondent priced the domain name to Complainant, the evidence is clear that Respondent did not acquire the domain name for the primary purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to another.

4. Respondent’s current use of the domain name “PARACHUTE.COM” does not conflict with or interfere with Complainant’s business or service mark.

6. Complainant has not established that the name “Parachute” is exclusively identified with it or the business that it operates. 

7. Respondents use of the service mark “Parachute” and the domain name “PARACHUTE.COM” precedes any use of the service mark name by the Complainant.


8. To prevail, Complainant must establish in the record that Respondent:

a. Registered a domain name that is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”; and

b. Has “no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name”; and

c. Has registered and is using the domain name in “bad faith”.

9. Complainant failed to meet its burden of showing that Respondent “registered and …used in bad faith” the domain name in violation of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), (iii), or (iv).


            The undersigned arbitrator certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interests to serve as Arbitrator in this proceeding.  Having been duly selected, and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following Conclusions and Decision.

1.  Complainant failed to show that he should be granted exclusive use of the domain name “PARACHUTE.COM” as Respondent was making use of it and the domain name was not available at the time Complainant chose to commence using the name “parachute” in connection with its business.

2. Complainant failed to show that Respondent is attempting to mislead customers or tarnish the name “parachute” to the detriment of the Complainant.

3. Complainant failed to show that Respondent has registered or used the domain name in bad faith.


Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided as follows:


DATED:  July 12, 2000 by Judge James P. Buchele (Ret.), Arbitrator.


                                    Honorable James P. Buchele (Ret.)

[1] Any reference to “Rule” or “Rules” is to ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as supplemented by the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rules to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Resolution Policy.