The Complainant is CMVY, Inc., Gordonville, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by John G. Fischer, of Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. The Respondent is Off Shore Atlantic Yachts, Inc., Riviera Beach, FL, USA ("Respondent") represented by Scott J. Major, of Cleary & Komen, LLP.

The domain names at issue are <valiantyachts.com>, <valiantyachts.net>, and <valiantyachts.org>, registered with Network Solutions.

The undersigned certify that they have acted independently, impartially, and to the best of their knowledge, have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr., the Honorable John J. Upchurch, and James A. Carmody as Panelists.

The Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on May 24, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 24, 2001.

On May 25, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <valiantyachts.com>, <valiantyachts.net>, and <valiantyachts.org> are registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that the Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 4.0 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 May 30, 2001, a Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 19, 2001 by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complainant, was transmitted to the Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@valiantyachts.com, postmaster@valiantyachts.net, postmaster@valiantyachts.org by e-mail.

A timely response was received on June 19, 2001. After the deadline for submissions, the Complainant filed an Additional Statement; the Respondent filed a Request to Strike the Additional Response of the Complainant; and the Complainant filed a Response to the Complainant and Request to Strike. The Panel in its discretion has considered the late submissions. Since the Panel had already circulated its decision, the Panel considered the Respondent’s Additional Response of July 6, 2001 untimely.

On June 27, 2001, pursuant to the Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr., The Honorable John J. Upchurch, and James Carmody as Panelists.

The Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. The Respondent requests a finding that the Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

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:

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

Based upon the evidence put forward, the Complainant has not met its burden of proof and the case may be more appropriately decided in a court of law. However, this is not a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

The domain names <valiantyachts.com>, <valiantyachts.net>, <valiantyachts.org> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark VALIANT, which it has used in connection with yachts since 1975. See Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words "fashion" or "cosmetics" after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark). The domain names are merely combinations of the Complainant’s mark, VALIANT, use of the generic term (YACHTS), and common URL suffixes: .com, .net and .org.

The Respondent does not dispute that each of the domain names is confusingly similar to the VALIANT mark registered by the Complainant; however, the Patent and Trademark registration was well subsequent to the Respondent’s registration of the domain names.

The Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in respect of the domain names. The Respondent and its principals have employed the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of, among other things, used VALIANT yachts. Moreover, the Respondent’s principals have used a name, "Valiant Yacht Owners Association", in connection with an organization which has actively promoted the exchange of information and ideas about Valiant Yacht.

The Policy also provides that a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name is demonstrated where the registrant has been commonly known by the domain name even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights. Policy § 4(c)(ii). The Dabneys have operated the Valiant Yachts Owners Association for years. In addition, the trade name "Valiant Yachts Owners Association" was registered with the State of Maryland in 1995, before the Respondent registered any of the Domain names.

The Respondent has made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. Policy § 4(c)(iii). Applicant has a legitimate interest in using "valiantyachts" in the second-level of its domain names because it is the primary source worldwide for purchasing, selling and obtaining information about used VALIANT Yachts. See The Kittinger Company Inc. v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107 (e-Resolution May 8, 2000) (complaint dismissed where owner of KITTINGER mark for furniture sought transfer of kittinger.com and kittingercollector.com from respondent which for years had been in the business of acquiring, reconditioning and reselling used KITTINGER furniture).

The Respondent also has a legitimate interest in using "valiantyachts" in the second-level of its domain names because it is the primary source worldwide for purchasing, selling and obtaining information about used VALIANT Yachts. See The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. v. Piper.com, FA 94367 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 2, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s sale of used Piper aircraft at PIPER.COM was deemed a legitimate interest).

The Complainant has not shown that the Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith.

The Respondent is not attracting Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or of a product on its website. At "offshoreyachts.com," the Respondent promotes the sale of used boats other than Valiant boats.

Furthermore, the Complainant voiced no objection to the Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names for almost four years after the registration of the first domain name. See New Piper Aircraft, Inc. v. Piper.com, FA 94367 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 2, 2000) (stating that Complainant’s failure to initiate a suit in over two years indicated that Complainant did not believe that Respondent intended to attract customers through confusion).

Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Panel finds in favor of the Respondent. Therefore, the relief requested by the Complainant pursuant to Paragraph 4(I) of the Policy is Denied. The Respondent shall not be required to transfer to the Complainant the domain names <valiantyachts.com>, <valiantyachts.net>, and <valiantyachts.org>.