The Complainant is Perot Systems Corporation, Dallas, TX, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Investment Promotion Group, Inc., Chestnut Ridge, NY, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com, and perothealthcaresystems.com, registered with Registrar.com.

The undersigned (or panelist) 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 the panelist in this proceeding.

Herman D. Michels, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on August 24, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 22, 2000.

On August 31, 2000, Registrar.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com, and perothealthcaresystems.com are registered with Registrar.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On August 29, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 18, 2000 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@perothealthsystems.com, postmaster@perothealthsystem.com, and postmaster@perothealthcaresystems.com by e-mail.

On September 26, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Herman D. Michels as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant, founded in 1988, contends it is a world-leader in the field of technology and business consulting services. Through use and development, Perot Systems has gained valuable rights in various trademarks, including Perot Systems, perotsystems, perot. com and perotsystems.com. In order to protect its rights, Complainant has registered or applied for registration of each of these marks by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

Complainant contends that it has continuously used the service mark Perot Systems in conjunction with technology related services and that the Perot Systems mark is used exclusively in providing technology and consulting services to the fields of healthcare, pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. Complainant also uses the service mark Perot Systems Healthcare Group in relations to these fields.

Complainant contends that since 1996, it has used the service mark Perotsystems in relation to the healthcare field and that this mark was registered on the Principal Register in 1999. It further contends that since early 1996, it has used perot.com and perotsystems.com as domain names. These websites garner significant traffic for Complainant and serve as Complainant’s online contact for consumers. Complainant filed U.S. trademark and service mark applications for these marks in January 1999 and the applications are currently pending. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the domain names perohealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com, and perothealthcaresystem.com which infringe on Complainant’s domain names.

Complainant contends that the domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to its marks because each name contains the term "Perot" and "Systems" and includes a reference to health or healthcare. Complainant claims that there is a strong likelihood of confusion between Respondent’s domain names and the Perot Systems marks.

Complainant also contends that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interest in the domain names and that they were registered solely with the purpose to act as a cybersquatter.

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy paragraph 4(b); that the names are so similar to the Complainant’s trademarks that Respondent intended to create a likelihood of confusion and profit from its marks; and that by using the term "Perot" along with the term "Systems," Respondent has created the appearance of an association between the domain names at issue and Complainant.

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the names in bad faith pursuant to policy paragraph 4(b)(i) in that Respondent made a thinly vailed demand for money in exchange for the domain names to Complainant.

Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names constitute bad faith when analyzed in the light of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

In sum, Complainant alleges that the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which it has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the domain names, and that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Complainant, therefore, seeks a transfer of the domain names to it.

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that PeROT Health Systems Dot Com is being incorporated in Ghana and that it seeks to leverage Internet technologies to enhance the practice of traditional medicine in Ghana. Respondent claims that PeROT Health Systems Dot Com derives its name from an ancient incantation that is used in traditional healing procedures by the Ataara people who are ancestors of the Akans that live in the Krachi area in Ghana. It claims that the incantation, like a number of other oral traditions, contains a formula for certain medicinal preparations for the cure of ailments and that it intends to communicate this tradition by using the power of the internet to disseminate information that was handed down by its ancestors.

Respondent further claims that the PeROT Health Systems Dot Com is being organized to conduct research into traditional healing systems, document and test new medicinal preparations using herbs and roots, catalog illnesses endemic to the sub-Saharan region of West Africa, import and sell used medical equipment, export herbal preparations and create a dictionary of herbs and roots, including their original names. It contends that it has acted in good faith, that it has not acted in any way that would bring harm to Complainant and that as any startup corporation, it has incurred and continues to incur direct out-of-pocket expenses as well as time and has sought and will continue to seek an amicable solution to this matter.

Complainant was founded in 1988 and is a world-leader in the field of technology and business consulting and services. Through use and development, Complainant has gained valuable rights in various trademarks, including Perot Systems, perotsystems, perot.com and perotsystems.com and has registered or applied for registration of each of these marks with the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

Since 1988, Complainant has continuously used the service mark Perot Systems in conjunction with technology related services and this mark was registered on the Supplemental Register of the United States Patent & Trademark Office in 1991 and transferred to the Principal Register in 1997. The Perot Systems mark is used exclusively by Complainant in providing technology and consulting services to the fields of healthcare, pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. Complainant uses the service mark Perot Systems Healthcare Group in relation to these fields. Perot Systems Healthcare Group is focused on deploying technology that delivers value for clients in all healthcare market segments including healthcare systems, health insurance, physician practice management, long-term care, home health, behavioral healthcare, pharmaceuticals and medical supply entities.

Since 1996, Complainant has used the service mark perotsystems in relation to the healthcare field. This mark was registered on the Principal Register in 1999. As early as 1996, Complainant has used perot.com and perotsystems.com as domain names and Complainant filed U.S. trademark and service mark applications for these marks in January 1999 and are currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The domain names perohealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealtcaresystem.com, registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks Perot Systems, Perot Systems Healthcare Group, Perotsystems, perot.com and perotsystems.com due to the fact that each of Respondent’s domain names contains the term "Perot" and "Systems." This confusion is compounded by the fact that each domain name registered by Respondent includes a reference to health or healthcare which Complainant’s marks are used in relation to health. Complainant is and has been using the Perot Systems marks in relation to healthcare services, healthcare and the medical industry and there is a strong likelihood of confusion between Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s Perot System marks. Respondent does not have any rights or interest in the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com.

Respondent has registered the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com and is using said names in bad faith by virtue of the fact that Respondent registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. See R.4(b)(iii).

Additionally, Respondent has registered and used the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to Complainant for a valuable consideration in excess of the document out-of-pocket cost directly related to the domain names. See R.4(b)(ii). See also Educational Testing Service v. Toefl, D2000-004 4(WIPO Mar. 16, 2000.) (finding that a general offer of sale, combined with no legitimate use of the domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith; The Avenue, Inc. & United Retail Inc. v. Guirguis, D2000-0013 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent informed the Complainant of the intent to form a business in the same field as Complainant, but at the same time, offered the domain name for sale to Complainant).

Respondents activities constitute an infringement of Complainant’s rights in it Perot Systems marks and has caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Complainant and its business reputation and good will.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be canceled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystems.com, registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, including perot systems, perotsystems, perot.com and perotsystems.com and its service mark, perotsystemshealthcare group in which Complainant has all rights and interests.

Respondent does not have any substantial rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com. See Slep-tone Entertainment Corp. v. Sound Choice Disk Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because domain name infringes on the Complainant’s mark). See also The Caravan Club v. Megsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000)

Respondent registered and used the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com with the intent of disrupting the business of Complainant See R.4(b)(iii), and used the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to Complainant for a valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names. See R.4(b)(i).

Based upon the above findings and conclusions and pursuant to Rule 4(i) of the Rules of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the National Arbitration Forum Supplemental Rules of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Resolution Policy, I hereby Order that the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com registered by Respondent Investment Promotion Group, Inc. be transferred forthwith to Complainant Perot Systems Corporation and Respondent Investment Promotion Group, Inc. shall cease and desist from any and all use of the domain names perothealthsystems.com, perothealthsystem.com and perothealthcaresystem.com.