Solutia, Inc. v. Sur Hosting c/o Rafael
Abarca
Claim Number: FA0605000716391
PARTIES
Complainant is Solutia, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan M. Kaatz, of Ladas & Parry, Digital Brands Practice, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604. Respondent is Sur Hosting c/o Rafael Abarca (“Respondent”), represented by Octavio Vinces, Av. Jorge Basadre 1385, Dept 701, San Isidro, Lima, Peru.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <solutiaonline.net>,
registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.
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.
Honorable Richard B. Wickersham, Judge, (Ret.), as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on May 26, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on May 31, 2006.
On May 26, 2006, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <solutiaonline.net>
domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that the Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Wild
West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West
Domains, 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 June 5, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of June 26, 2006 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@solutiaonline.net by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June
26, 2006.
On June 28, 2006, Complainant and Respondent submitted a Joint Request
to Stay the Administrative Proceeding for forty-five days pursuant to National
Arbitration Forum Supplemental Rule 6(b)(i).
On July 3, 2006, the Stay was granted for a forty-five day period to end
on August 12, 2006. On August 11, 2006,
Complainant submitted a Request to Remove the Stay of Administrative
Proceeding. Complainant’s request was
granted and the Stay was lifted on August 11, 2006.
On August 11, 2006, Complainant submitted an Additional
Submission. Complainant’s submission
was timely.
On August 17, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Richard B. Wickersham, Judge (Ret.), as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Solutia, Inc. (“Solutia”) is a prominent leader in the applied
chemistry industry with more than three billion dollars in annual global sales
and over 9,000 employees located at 35 manufacturing sites throughout the
world. Solutia was founded in 1901 as
Monsanto Company. Decades of
involvement in the applied chemistry industry led to it becoming one of the
world’s leading chemical companies by the 1960’s. Solutia was created as an independent company in 1997. Today, Solutia is a specialty chemicals
company with a growth-oriented business strategy that drives its commitment to
excellent customer services. Solutia is
an international company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri with regional
headquarters in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Singapore.
Solutia maintains a strong business portfolio of high-performance products
and services. The product lines include
films for glass products, aviation hydraulics fluids, heat-transfer fluids,
water-treatment phosphates and nylon fibers for use in carpets. Solutia’s scientists also provide process
research and development, and small-scale manufacturing in support of new drug
therapy development. Solutia’s mission
is to create solutions for a better life.
From the next generation of glass to better treatments for disease, the
company is growing key businesses and technologies that give customers a
foothold on the future.
Solutia is well known in Peru due to its long-standing commercial
activities and its considerable trademark portfolio. Solutia is the owner of the trademarks in the United States and
Peru, among others. Solutia owns over
100 trademark registrations in the U.S. and at least 16 active trademark
registrations in Peru alone, including three incorporating the designation
SOLUTIA that predate Respondent’s domain name registration. The marks include the SOLUTIA mark, which
was first registered in the United States on August 22, 2000, and the SOLUTIA
mark, which was first registered in Peru on January 20, 1998. These registrations show Solutia’s ownership
of the exclusive right to use these marks in U.S. and Peruvian commerce.
Respondent registered the Offending Domain on January 20, 2006, well
after Solutia’s long-standing and extensive registration and use of its SOLUTIA
trademarks. Without the authorization
or consent of Solutia, Respondent is using the Offending Domain to redirect
Internet traffic to a parked webpage displaying the SOLUTIA designation. The commercial webpage merely lists contact
information and a “webmail” link, without description or explanation. On March 22, 2006, upon discovery of Respondent’s
unauthorized registration and use of the <solutiaonline.net>
domain name, Solutia sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent.
B. Respondent
Respondent has registered the domain name <solutiaonline.net> following the instructions of SOLUTIA SAC, a company registered and organized under Peruvian laws. Accordingly, we request the panel that allegations in this Response be treated as pertaining to both the Respondent and said company.
In accordance to Peruvian laws and regulations, the founders and shareholders of that company have requested the Peruvian authorities to register it with the name SOLUTIA SAC. The Peruvian authorities (Public Registry) accepted that request. Consequently, that name was included into its articles of incorporations.
As it may be true that Complainant has registered its trademark "Solutia" before the Peruvian Trademark and Patent Office, that fact is not sufficient evidence that this is a well-known mark in the Peruvian market. Indeed, Complainant has not included any evidence that the name "Solutia" is well known by the general public in Peru.
Whereas there is an undeniable phonetic similarity between the trademark owned by Complainant and the name SOLUTIA SAC, neither Respondent nor SOLUTIA SAC ever attempted to register such name as a trademark. The use of the word "solutia" in the domain name <solutiaonline.net> is a simple consequence of the registered name of SOLUTIA SAC.
As Respondent and SOLUTIA SAC recognize the legitimate rights and interests of Complainant's in regard to the Solutia trademark in Peru, they also have to emphasize that such mark is not well-known by the general public in Peru, and no evidence brought by the Complainant drives to an opposite conclusion.
SOLUTIA SAC is a company legally constituted and organized in 2004 under the laws of Peru, whose core business is manufacturing, importing and selling advertising materials to other companies and individuals in the Peruvian market.
As any other company or individual doing business in the market, SOLUTIA SAC has the right and legitimate interest on the registration of a domain name for the purpose of creating a website and maintaining e-mail accounts.
The fact that the domain name under dispute is currently pointing to a parked website cannot be used as conclusive evidence of lack of rights to or legitimate interests on the domain name <solutiaonline.net>. The parked website announces that this is under construction (“pagina en construccion”), which conveys that SOLUTIA SAC is in the process of developing the information of its business to be included in its website.
As Respondent has registered the domain name <solutiaonline.net> following the instructions of a company legally named SOLUTIA SAC, and the trademark Solutia is not well-known in Peru (as no evidence brought by the Complainant drives to an opposite conclusion), Respondent was not obliged to request any license or authorization from Complainant.
As per the statements contained in this Response, the registration and use of the domain name <solutiaonline.net> are in connection to a bona fide offering of goods and services provided by SOLUTIA SAC.
There is no willingness to divert consumers nor Internet traffic for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. In fact, Solutia SAC does not intend to offer goods or services similar to those commercialize or sold by the Complainant, not can it be deemed as a Complainant's competitor.
SOLUTIA SAC has the right to and legitimate interest in the use of its name as part of a domain name, since (i) that name has been legally registered by the Peruvian authorities, and (ii) its customers and providers known the company under that name.
Although Complainant is the legitimate owner of the Solutia trademark in Peru, that trademark cannot be deemed as a well-known trademark in the Peruvian market since this is not familiar to the general public's knowledge.
SOLUTIA SAC is a company doing business exclusively in the Peruvian market and it does not intend doing business in the US or any other country.
Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is
to the best of Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response
is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that
the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under
applicable law, as it now exits or as it may be extended by good-faith and
reasonable argument.
C. Additional Submissions
I received and carefully reviewed an Additional Submission addressing
Respondent’s Response to the Complaint, as well as a Response to Complainant’s
Additional Submission. Both were very
helpful and were fully considered.
Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to establish (i) any
connection between Sur Hosting and SOLUTIA SAC, (ii) that it is commonly known
by the name SOLUTIA, and (iii) that it has rights or legitimate interests in
the registration of the domain name <solutiaonline.net>.
Respondent alleges that, as stated in our first response dated 26 June
2006, Sur Hosting has registered the domain name <solutiaonline.net>
following the instructions of SOLUTIA SAC, a company registered and organized
under Peruvian laws. Respondent did not
attempt to establish that Sur Hosting is commonly known by the name SOLUTIA,
but that it acted as a representative (mandatario)
of SOLUTIA SAC; that is, under the instruction or commands of such company.
Under UDRP Rule 1, the “respondent” is defined as the “holder of a
domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated.” NAF’s Supplemental Rule 1(d) strictly
defines the respondent further. “The
holder of a domain name registration,” as used in UDRP Rule 1, (1) means the single person or entity listed in the
WHOIS registration information at the time of the filing of the complaint with
NAF, and (ii) once the registrar has verified registration, is limited to the
single person or entity as verified by the registrar. Under NAF’s Supplemental Rules, the respondent in this dispute is
Sur Hosting, as Sur Hosting is the single
entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of the filing
of the Complaint in this matter.
Furthermore, the respondent in this dispute is limited to Sur Hosting,
as Sur Hosting is the entity that was verified by the registrar.
Sur Hosting characterizes its registration and use of the Offending
Domain as legitimate based on the registration of the business name SOLUTIA SAC
in Peru. Nevertheless, Sur Hosting
fails to establish any connection between Sur Hosting and SOLUTIA SAC; instead,
Sur Hosting merely relies upon the registration certificate for the SOLUTIA SAC
business name. Yet, as dictated by
NAF’s Supplemental Rules, Sur Hosting, as the single entity listed in the WHOIS
registration information at the time of filing of the complaint in this matter
and as verified by the registrar, must establish that Sur Hosting has rights to
or legitimate interests in the Offending Domain. The registration of the SOLUTIA SAC business name by a separate
entity other than Sur Hosting is irrelevant to the present issue. Sur Hosting has failed to establish that it
has rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name incorporating
Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Sur Hosting has no rights to or
legitimate interests in the Offending Domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
because there is no evidence Sur Hosting is commonly known by the <solutiaonline.net>
domain pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Sur Hosting also claims that the availability of the SOLUTIA SAC
business name was “checked” prior to the registration of the company. Complainant questions the diligence of Sur
Hosting’s “check” when a reasonable search of the Peruvian trademark registry
would have revealed Complainant’s registered marks. Sur Hosting expressly concedes in its Response the “undeniable”
similarity between Complainant’s Peruvian trademark and the SOLUTIA SAC
business name. It can only follow that
use of the tern “solutia” in the Offending Domain renders the Offending Domain
confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered marks. Furthermore, registration and use of a
domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark, despite actual or
constructive knowledge of the trademark owner’s rights, is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as discussed in the
Complaint.
Similarly, Sur Hosting’s assertions contained in its Response are
completely unsubstantiated. Sur Hosting
has offered no evidence establishing the existence of a legitimate
business. Specifically, Sur Hosting has
failed to proffer evidence regarding the connection between itself and SOLUTIA
SAC, business preparations, construction of the Offending Domain’s website, the
existence of clients or actual sales.
Rather, Sur Hosting merely relies on the registration of the company
name SOLUTIA SAC. The Panel finds that
such unsubstantiated claims establish neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Finally, Sur Hosting offered to sell the domain name registration to
Complainant for $90,000.00. This
exorbitant proposal evidences Sur Hosing’s intent to sell the Offending Domain
registration to Complainant for value in gross excess of the out-of-pocket
costs related to the domain name. Sur
Hosting’s extortionate offer was clearly designed to take advantage of
Complainant’s good faith attempt to resolve this dispute amicably. The Panel, therefore, finds that Sur Hosting
has registered and used the Offending Domain in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶4(a)(iii) by registering the Offending Domain for the purpose of selling the
registration to Complainant for value in excess of the out-of-pocket costs
related to the domain name, which evidences bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Matmut v. Tweed, D2000-1183 (WIPO
Nov. 27, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where the respondent
stated in communication with the complainant that it would be ready to sell the
<matmut.com> domain name registration for $10,000); World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t., Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan.
14, 2000) (finding that the respondent used the domain name in bad faith
because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess
of any out-of-pocket costs); Campmor,
Inc. v. GearPro.com, FA 197972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2003) (“Respondent
registered the disputed domain name and offered to sell it to Complainant for
$10,600. This demonstrates bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain
name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(i); Kabushiki Kaisha
Hitachi Seisakusho (Japan Corp.) v. Fortune Int’l Dev. Ent. Co., D2000-0412
(WIPO July 2, 2000) (find the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for
$100,000 constitutes bad faith).
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 maintains that it has
registered the SOLUTIA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,379,855 issued August 22, 2000; Reg. No. 2,482,655 issued
August 28, 2001; Reg. No. 2,578,953 issued June 11, 2002; Reg. No. 2,938,465
issued April 5, 2005; Reg. No. 2,725,140 issued June 10, 2003) and the Peruvian
trademark authority (Reg. No. 42,835 issued January 23, 1998; Reg. No. 45,773
issued January 28, 1998; Reg. No. 42,722 issued January 20, 1988). The Panel concludes that Complainant’s
worldwide trademark registrations, including in Peru, where Respondent resides,
demonstrate its rights in the SOLUTIA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA
286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had
established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark
registrations around the world, including Peru); see also Vivendi Universal
Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003)
(“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights
in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Complainant also maintains that
Respondent’s <solutiaonline.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to its SOLUTIA mark because the domain name is made up of Complainant’s
registered SOLUTIA mark, the term “online,” and the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.net.” The Panel finds that
the mere additions of the term “online” and a gTLD do not sufficiently
distinguish the <solutiaonline.net> domain name from Complainant’s
SOLUTIA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to the complainant’s BROADCOM mark); see also Arthur
Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar.
23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute
contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or
term); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25,
2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com”
does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar).
Respondent admits that it does not
own a trademark registration for the SOLUTIA SAC mark but nevertheless contends
that it has registered a corporation in Peru under SOLUTIA SAC mark and uses
the mark as its trade name. However,
previous panels have held that the Policy does not extend protection to trade
names, and Complainant allegedly holds several trademark registrations for the
SOLUTIA mark in Peru. Thus, the Panel
decides to defer to the determination of the Peruvian trademark authority in
issuing a valid trademark registration and finds that Respondent does not have
any rights in the mark. See Navigo Energy Inc. v. Meier, FA 206312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“The Policy was
intended solely to protect registered and unregistered trademarks and not trade
names because trade names are not universally protected as are trademarks.”); see
also Front Range Internet, Inc. v. Murphy, FA 145231 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
4, 2003) (finding that the complainant's use of a trade name, without any
showing of secondary meaning associated with the name, was an insufficient
demonstration that the complainant had rights under the Policy).
The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Complainant contends that because
the WHOIS information lists the registrant of the domain name as “Sur Hosting
c/o Rafael Abarca,” and there is no other evidence in the record indicating
that Respondent is commonly known by the <solutiaonline.net>
domain name, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant also asserts that it has not
authorized or licensed Respondent to register or use a domain name
incorporating a variation of Complainant’s SOLUTIA mark. The Panel agrees that Respondent is not
commonly known by the <solutiaonline.net> domain name, the Panel
finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Broadcom Corp. v.
Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a
legitimate or fair use); see also Wells Fargo
& Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc.,
FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information
for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate
Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
Complainant also claims that Respondent’s <solutiaonline.net> domain name resolves to a parked page which states that the page is under construction. Complainant claims that Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name since registering it on January 20, 2006. The Panel finds that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA 204148 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent's passive holding of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Wirth, FA 102713 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display an “under construction” page did not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent claims that it plans on
using the <solutiaonline.net> domain name to operate a business
website for a corporation doing business as SOLUTIA SAC. However, the only evidence Respondent
provides of this use is the articles of incorporation for the company. Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent
has not provided enough evidence to show that it has demonstrable preparations
to use the <solutiaonline.net> domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Household Int’l,
Inc. v. Cyntom Enters., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (finding
that the respondent’s “vague and unsupported assertion of ‘plans to sell
household goods, supplies and appliances over the Internet’” was insufficient
to be considered proof of a legitimate business plan); see also Open Sys. Computing AS v. degli Alessandri,
D2000-1393 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent did not establish
rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where the respondent
mentioned that it had a business plan for the website at the time of
registration but did not furnish any evidence in support of this claim).
Even if Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(b), the Panel still finds that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s registration and use of the <solutiaonline.net> domain name is indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <solutiaonline.net> domain name has never resolved to any content and that therefore Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. The Panel holds that Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name since its registration in January of 2006 constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
In its Additional Submission, Complainant provided a detailed account of Respondent’s attempt to transfer the <solutiaonline.net> domain name to Complainant for $90,000. Complainant asserts that it was open to a good faith dialogue with Respondent to reach a fair price for the disputed domain name based on Complainant’s actual out-of-pocket costs related to the domain name. Complainant further asserts that the high price requested by Respondent for the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent of transferring it to Complainant for valuable compensation. The Panel finds that there is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Meeting Point Co., D2000-1245 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain names except to offer them to sale to the complainant); see also Moynahan v. Fantastic Sites, Inc., D2000-1083 (WIPO Oct. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the complainant for $10,000 when the respondent was contacted by the complainant).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <solutiaonline.net>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Richard B. Wickersham, Judge
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum