Haas Automation, Inc. v. ASI
Machine and Supply a/k/a Brian Denny a/k/a CNCPros.net
Claim Number: FA0904001256423
PARTIES
Complainant is Haas Automation, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Farah
P. Bhatti, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <haascnconline
PANEL
The undersigned David H Tatham, 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
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(“the Forum”) electronically on April 7, 2009; the Forum received a hard copy
of the Complaint on April 8, 2009
On April 7, 2009, Godaddy confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <haascnconline
On April 16, 2009, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, setting a deadline
of May 6, 2009 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@haascnconline
E-mail Responses were received electronically on April 19 and April 20, 2009, however, they were deemed
to be deficient as neither was in compliance with ICANN Rule 5
On May 15, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum
appointed Mr
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant has four
HAAS (Logo) No
HAAS AUTOMATION No
HAAS FACTORY OUTLET No
HAAS FACTORY OUTLET No
The two earliest of these marks
both claim July 1983 as their date of first use, and Complainant contends that
it enjoys long and very strong worldwide rights in, and recognition of, the
mark HAAS and that this mark has been associated with computer numerically
controlled (or CNC) machines for over twenty-five years
Complainant contends that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HAAS trademark, as well as
to its official domain <haascnc
Complainant also contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name inter alia because:
·
Complainant’s trademarks have been used and
known worldwide to identify Complainant’s goods and services
·
Complainant has not consented to Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain name
·
Respondent is not using the disputed domain name
in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services, nor is Respondent making a legitimate
noncommercial fair use of the name
·
Respondent is using the disputed domain name for
a website that promotes other commercial websites
·
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to
divert Internet traffic from Complainant’s legitimate website
·
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name
to run click-through links or to redirect users to sponsored web sites does not
qualify as a bona fide offering of
goods and services, and it is presumed that Respondent receives compensation
for each misdirected user
·
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name, either as a business, individual or other organization
·
Respondent is not making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and Complainant believes
that the sole reason Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name is to trade
off its own reputation and goodwill that is associated with its trademark HAAS
and its <haascnc
Complainant also contends that
the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and notes that Respondent
is the registrant of two infringing domain names
Complainant’s counsel engaged in
an e-mail correspondence with Respondent between December 2008 and March 2009,
when Respondent asked whether Complainant might be interested in buying both of
the disputed domain names, at the same time alleging that the demand to
transfer the domain was “completely
ridiculous” and that he would be
“truly interested in battling” over this issue and “will enjoy taking Haas’s [sic] money for my attorneys’ and whatever
else I can get when it’s done
Complainant contends that using
Complainant’s trademark HAAS and its official domain name, <haascnc
Complainant concludes that, given
the well-known status of its name and trademark, and given the fact that Respondent
is clearly aware of its name and mark and its ownership of them as well as the
domain <haascnc
Finally, Complainant contends
that the registration of the disputed domain name violates the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U
B. Respondent
On April 19, 2009, Respondent, Mr
“I have consulted an attorney and Haas is
exactly correct
The Forum replied pointing out that this message did not comply with
ICANN’s or its own requirements but that if Respondent were to reply before May
6, 2009, with a copy to Complainant, confirming that the Response was complete,
the Forum would continue with the proceedings and the document would be
included in the file and treated as a non-compliant response
On April 20, 2009, Mr
“I retained an internet attorney and have
decided the cause is not worth the fight
FINDINGS
Complainant is a substantial and
long-established manufacturer of computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines
for which it uses and has registered the trademarks HAAS, HAAS AUTOMATION and
HAAS FACTORY OUTLET
Respondent, Mr
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
Respondent does not contest any of
Complainant’s allegations regarding the disputed domain name, and indeed has indicated that he will consent to a judgment in
favour of Complainant for its transfer
In this case, the Panel sees no
reason why it should depart from the course adopted in all three of the above
Decisions, or why it should deny the requests of both Complainant and
Respondent
DECISION
Having established that Complainant’s request for a transfer of the
disputed domain name <haascnconline
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <haascnconline
David H Tatham, Panelist
Dated: May 29, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum
………………………………………….