START-UP TRADEMARK OPPOSITION POLICY

DECISION

Vietnam Venture Group Inc v. cosmos consulting gmbh

Claim Number: FA0111000102610

PARTIES

The Complainant is Vietnam Venture Group, Inc., Bangkok, Thailand (“Complainant”) represented by Peter N. Sheridan, of Vietnam Venture Group. Inc. The Respondent is Cosmos Consulting Gmbh, Munich, Germany (“Respondent”), of Cosmos Consulting Gmbh.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vvg.biz>, registered with Network Solutions.

PANEL

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.

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint, as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (IP) Claim Form with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel. As an IP Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 28, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2001.

On December 5, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 26, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 17, 2001.

Complainant submitted a timely additional submission on December 26, 2001, pursuant to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.

On January 16, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as the single Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

“VVG” is the acronym for Vietnam Venture Group, Inc., the Complainant in this matter. Complainant contends that since March 1994 it has used “VVG” extensively in its business cards, stationary and promotional materials. Complainant asserts that “VVG” is an “integral part of [its] dramatic and familiar logo and service mark.” It claims to use its mark with respect to a variety of services such as consulting, “market entry services,” business formation, investments, business development and culture. According to Complainant, “VVG” is an acronym for the German word meaning “insurance contract law” which has no relationship to the Respondent’s business.

B. Respondent

Respondent cosmos consulting gmbh filed the Response in this matter on behalf of its customer, VVG Verwertungs- und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. KG, which claims to have used the letters “VVG” since 1991 in the waste management business. It claims to be known as VVG to all important waste managers and waste installations in Germany and Spain.

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant made an additional submission in which it complained that any rights that VVG Verwertungs- und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. KG had to the use of the disputed domain name would not extend to Respondent. Complainant contends that in its registration agreement, Respondent failed to make the proper disclosures of its relationship with the real party in interest, VVG Verwertungs- und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. KG. when it registered the domain name and disclosed the relationship only after this dispute arose.

FINDINGS

Because Complainant has not established rights in the mark, “VVG,” the Complaint must be dismissed. First, Complainant does not hold a registered trademark in VVG. Second, Complainant has not demonstrated sufficiently strong identification of its mark such that there would be recognition among Internet users that the mark “VVG” identifies goods or services unique to Complainant.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:

(1) the domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Under the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form. Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service mark in which a Complainant asserts rights. The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant asserts rights.

Complainant’s Rights in the Mark

DECISION

The Complaint is dismissed.

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated: February 6, 2002