International Information Systems
Security Cerification Consorttium (ISC)2 v. Rifin d.o.o.
Claim Number: FA0302000145282
PARTIES
Complainant
is International Information Systems
Security Cerification Consortium (ISC)2, Framingham, MA (“Complainant”)
represented by Arthur G. Schaier, of Carmody & Torrance LLP.
Respondent is Sebastian O'Neil
Rifin d.o.o., Zagreb, II, HR (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <isc2.com>,
registered with Easyspace Ltd.
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
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on February 13, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 14, 2003.
On
February 26, 2003, Easyspace Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <isc2.com> is
registered with Easyspace Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Easyspace Ltd. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Easyspace Ltd. 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
February 26, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of March 18, 2003 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@isc2.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 13, 2003.
Complainant’s
additional submission was timely received on March 17, 2003. Respondent’s
additional submission was timely received on March 19, 2003.
On March 27, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E.
Meyerson as Panelist.
On April 7, 2003, the Panel requested the parties to
submit additional information regarding the contention by Respondent that
Complainant had “relinquished” the domain name at issue. Both parties timely submitted a response to
this request.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS (Including
Additional Submissions)
A. Complainant
Complainant International Information
Systems Security Certification Consortium (ISC)2, is a global,
not-for-profit organization that was formed in 1989 to develop an accepted
industry standard for the information security practice. Complainant states that it has provided
certification to thousands of information security professionals in over 80
countries worldwide, including over 452 professionals in the United Kingdom,
who have attained certification as Certified Information Systems Security
Professionals. Complainant’s domain
name is <isc2.org>. The
<isc2.org> domain name was registered by Complainant on November 12,
1996.
Currently, Complainant has a pending
United States application for federal registration of the mark (ISC)2. This application was filed on September 21,
2001, and published for opposition on October 29, 2002. The Complainant also has an application
pending at the Patent Office in the United Kingdom for the mark (ISC)2. The filing of this application was made on
March 18, 2002.
Complainant states that the domain name <isc2.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark, (ISC)2, because both the Complainant’s mark and the domain name
at issue comprise the same character string “isc2.”
Complainant
contends that the mark is unique and
exclusively used by the Complainant in the United States, the United Kingdom,
and throughout the world. Complainant
contends that the original Registrant was known as E-Fortress and/or CompuLab
and is not, nor, upon information and belief, has it ever been, known by the
acronym or initials ISC2 in any form.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends that he bought the
disputed domain name in good faith, under competition, fairly and has a valid
use for it. Respondent states that he
is the legal owner of the domain name and has more right to the name than the
Complainant. Respondent contends that
before he purchased the domain name, the Complainant was a previous owner. Thus, Respondent contends that the
Complainant has relinquished this domain into the market intentionally. Because Respondent thought that the name had
been relinquished by mistake, he did “not do anything with the domain for a
number of months.” According to
Respondent, once he was confident that he had obtained the name fairly and
legally, he decided to promote his own business venture. Respondent claims to have looked for a
suitable name for his company and came up with “Internet Security Company
2.” He states that because he is the
legal owner of the domain name, he adjusted his identify to fit the domain
name. Respondent contends that he
bought the domain name in good faith, under competition, and that he has a
valid use for it. Respondent states that he is willing to accept a
comparatively modest sum in exchange for the sale of the domain name.
FINDINGS
Complainant holds the registration for the <isc2.org>
domain name, which was registered on November 12, 1996. Currently, Complainant
has a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registration pending for the (ISC)² mark
(Ser. No. 76,316,029). Complainant’s
application for trademark registration was filed on September 21, 2001, and was
published for opposition on October 29, 2002.
Complainant also has a pending trademark application filed with the
Patent Office in the United Kingdom.
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 the 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 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.
Complainant
holds the registration for the <isc2.org> domain name, which was
registered on November 12, 1996. Currently, Complainant has a U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office registration pending for the (ISC)² mark (Ser. No.
76,316,029). Complainant’s application
for trademark registration was filed on September 21, 2001, and was published
for opposition on October 29, 2002.
Complainant also has a pending trademark application filed with the
Patent Office in the United Kingdom. Under the circumstances, Complainant has sufficiently established
rights in the (ISC)² mark for the purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., SeekAmerica Networks
Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000); British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23,
2000); Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000).
Complainant
asserts that Respondent’s <isc2.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s (ISC)² mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s
domain name incorporates the identical letter string of “isc2” into the
second-level domain. The Panel concurs
that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000); Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Shan Computers,
D2000-0325 (WIPO June 27, 2000); DCI S.A.
v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000).
The record reflects that Respondent’s
initial website advertised an entity known as “E-Fortress,” which provided
information security services. Following the initiation of this dispute,
Respondent changed the website’s contents to “under construction” and sought to
identify itself as “internet security company 2.” The modification of a website
after the initiation of a dispute has been found to demonstrate the lack of
rights or legitimate interests. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada,
D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that respondent had no rights or
legitimate interests where he decided to develop the website for the sale of
wall products after receiving complainant’s “cease and desist” notice); Melbourne
IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that respondent
made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name
dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and respondent is not
commonly known by the domain name).
In its initial submissions Respondent
asserted that it had rights to the domain name because Complainant had, in
effect, abandoned it by “relinquishing” it into the market. The Panel requested the parties to present
documentation on this point. Based upon
the documentation presented the Panel finds that the record contains no
evidence to support Respondent’s contention that Complainant previously had
owned the domain name and then relinquished it.
The Panel finds that Complainant has
established that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) which permits a finding of bad faith where the
respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet
users to his site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark. The initial complaint in this
matter was filed on February 12,
2003. An amended complaint was filed
seven days later. The record reflects that during this period, Respondent
changed the website to make it appear as though a legitimate entity, “internet
security company 2” is behind the website.
Moreover, the record indicates that Respondent’s website now purports to
be held by “internet security company 2” and the site purports to offer
services materially similar to those services offered by Complainant. Yet, Respondent has come forward with no
evidence that it has been commonly known by this name or that it has ever
provided services under this name.
Indeed, the record indicates that the site remains under construction. Under these circumstances, Complainant has
sufficiently made out a case for bad faith registration of the domain
name. Although Respondent does not
appear to be actually engaged in the business it portrays on its website, it
may still be found in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the evidence
indicates that it has registered the domain name for the purpose of damaging
the business of the Complainant. See generally R. Badgley, Domain Name
Disputes § 8.11 n. 185-87 (2002). Such
an inference can be drawn from this record.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <isc2.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: April 25, 2003
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page