NAT International v. Suez
Claim Number: FA0203000105930
PARTIES
The
Complainant is NAT International of Pointe Claire, Quebec, CANADA (“Complainant”). The Respondent is Suez of Paris, FRANCE (“Respondent”)
represented by M.Vincent Varet, of SCP Lafarge Flecheux Campana le Blevennec of Paris.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <suez.net>,
registered with Verisign - Network
Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and, to
the best of their knowledge, have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in
this proceeding.
Sandra
J. Franklin Esq., Professeur Xavier Linant de Bellefonds and Alan L. Limbury
Esq., (Chair) as Panelists.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on March 18, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 18, 2002.
On
March 20, 2002, Verisign - Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain name <suez.net>
is registered with Verisign - Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Verisign
- Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Verisign
- Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On
March 21, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 10,
2002 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@suez.net by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 10, 2002.
On May 1, 2002, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have
the dispute decided by a three-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J.
Franklin Esq., Professeur Xavier Linant de Bellefonds and Alan L. Limbury Esq.
as Panelists.
The language of the proceeding is partly English (being
the language of the Service Agreement) and partly French (being the language of
certain official documents). The Panel does not require a translation.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant,
owned by an Egyptian Canadian, promotes tourism in Egypt by means of several
domain names which it holds for Egyptian cities, including
<Egypt.net>.
On
November 15, 2000 Complainant registered the disputed domain name <suez.net>
for 10 years with Network Solutions, Inc. (“NSI”). Complainant used the domain name for tourism purposes, with the
assistance of the Egyptian Tourist Authority, and as an email service for
companies and individuals related to the city of Suez.
On
November 5, 2001 Respondent took court action in France to deprive Complainant
of the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends Respondent has no rights to that domain name and
has acted in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
is the successor to the company that built and operated the Suez Canal, thereby
making the city of Suez famous. One of Respondent’s four main activities is
communication. It is the registered proprietor of the trademark SUEZ in France
for “communication products and services by computer and on the Internet”. That mark is also registered in other
countries, including Canada.
Upon discovering Complainant’s registration of the disputed
domain name, Respondent served formal demand on Complainant, receipt of which
was acknowledged on June 26, 2001, but to which no substantive reply was
made. Thereupon Respondent commenced
trademark infringement proceedings against Complainant in the French court of
first instance at Nanterre. The summons
was duly served upon Complainant by the Quebec Ministry of Justice on October
17, 2001.
On
November 19, 2001, by summary judgment, the court at Nanterre found
Complainant’s registration and use of SUEZ as a domain name to have infringed
Respondent’s trademark SUEZ and ordered Complainant to transfer the domain name
to Respondent. It also held that NSI, although not a party, should transfer the
disputed domain name to Respondent and authorized Respondent, if necessary, to
arrange the transfer.
The
Quebec Ministry of Justice was unable to serve the judgment on Complainant.
Nevertheless, the disputed domain name was registered in the name of Respondent
on January 18, 2002.
Despite
the summary judgment, Complainant has initiated these proceedings in an attempt
to circumvent the time limit for an appeal (75 days from notification) and in
violation of Section 5 of the Policy.
In
any event, the dispute is not within Section 4(a) of the Policy.
Respondent
counterclaims against Complainant for $30,000 for damages, costs and fees for
arbitration and attorney’s fees.
FINDINGS
It is inappropriate for the Panel to
embark upon consideration of the merits of the Complaint. The administrative
proceeding should be terminated.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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;
(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.
As
in AmeriPlan Corp. v. Gilbert d/b/a NewWave Solutions, Inc., FA 105737
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 22, 2002), the Panel has decided not to consider the case
on its merits and does not consider these three elements. In that case the
three-member Panel held:
Under Section 5 of the Policy, disputes
outside of the narrow framework set out in Section 4 of the Policy
"... shall be resolved through any court ... available." While
Section 5 primarily seems to be concerned with using a UDRP forum to settle
matters unrelated, or indirectly related, to issues concerning domain name
registration and use, a complainant or respondent should not be permitted to
use a UDRP claim to boot strap decisions regarding more senior disputes between
the parties. This is especially so when, as here, an action is already pending
in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
….
Rendering a decision on the merits when
there is already a court action pending does violence to the one function of
the UDRP - to reduce the cost and effort required to resolve domain name disputes
issues by offering a simplified mechanism in lieu of litigation. Instead of
minimizing the amount of effort (time and money) needed to resolve a dispute,
filing a UDRP proceeding when the parties' dispute is already in front of a
court, adds to that effort.
We are also of the view that the Policy
at Section 4(k) has some application here. When evidence of a court proceeding
is submitted ICANN "will not implement the Administrative Panel's
decision, and ... take no further action until . . ." the court proceeding
is resolved. No purpose is served by our rendering a decision on the merits to
transfer the domain name, or have it remain, when as here, a decision regarding
the domain name will have no practical consequence.
That case concerned pending court proceedings in which
no judgment had been made at the time of the Panel’s consideration. This case concerns court proceedings in
which summary judgment has been rendered at first instance, from which no
appeal has been lodged. On that basis, the proceedings may be considered to be
no longer pending. However, on the
material before the Panel, that judgment has not been formally served on
Complainant[1], with the
consequence that the time for appeal may not have commenced to run, still less
have expired. On this basis, the proceedings may be considered to be still
pending. On either basis, for this
Panel to embark on a consideration of the merits of this case would be to
disregard the determination of the Nanterre court and do violence to the
function of the Policy to
reduce the cost and effort required to resolve domain name disputes issues by
offering a simplified mechanism in lieu of litigation.
Section
4(k) of the Policy is consistent with the notion that determinations under the
Policy are subordinate to those of competent
courts :
“The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements
set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you [the registrant] or
the Complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent
jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative
proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.”
Rule 18(a) provides:
“in the
event of any legal proceeding initiated prior to or during an administrative
proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the
complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or
terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision”.
Because
the legal proceedings initiated in Nanterre prior to the commencement of this
administrative proceeding have resulted in a judgment, as between the parties,
determining adversely to Complainant the very issue raised for decision by the
Panel, namely whether the Respondent is entitled to be the registrant of the disputed
domain name, the Panel decides to exercise its discretion to terminate these
proceedings.
As to
the Respondent’s counterclaim for damages, costs and fees, the Panel has no
power to entertain such an application.
DECISION
The administrative proceeding is
terminated under Rule 18(a) and the Complaint is hereby dismissed.
Alan L. Limbury,Esq.
Presiding Panelist
Dated: May 15, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page