Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA
www.arbitration-forum.com

Veritas DGC, Inc.

Complainant,

vs

The Collectors Source and

Edward T. Arrich, Jr.

Respondent

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE DECISION
Forum File No. FA0004000094425

_____________________________

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on May 8, 2000, before the undersigned, on the complaint of Veritas DGC Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") against The Collectors Source (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Collectors") and Edward T. Arrich, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Arrich"). The Complainant was represented by Jonathan M. Harris, Esq., 600 Travis, Suite 1800, Houston, Texas 77002. The Respondents' Response has been interposed by the Respondent Arrich pro se. Upon the written submitted record, the following decision is made:

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

Domain Names: VERITASDGC.NET and

VERITASDGC.ORG

Domain Name Registrar: Melbourne IT DBA Internet

Names Worldwide

Domain Name Registrant: The Collectors Source and

Edward T. Arrich, Jr.

Date of Domain Registration: February 20, 2000

Date Complaint Filed: April 13, 2000

Due Date for Response: May 3, 2000

After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (hereinafter referred to as "The Forum") forwarded the complaint to the Respondents on April 13, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(d). The Forum immediately notified the above Registrar, Melbourne IT DBA, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the complainants, that the

administrative proceedings had been commenced. Respondent submitted a response by FAX dated May 3, 2000, which was timely served.

On February 20, 2000, Respondent registered the domain names "VERITASDGC.NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG" with Melbourne IT DBA, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. By registering the domain name

"VERITASDGC.NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG" with Melbourne IT DBA, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN's Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Complainant is in the business of processing seismic data for others.
   
   
2. The Complainant's corporate name "Veritas DGC, Inc." came from the combination of two companies names: Veritas Energy Services, Inc. and Digicon, Inc. The DGC comes from the name DiGiCon, and was also used as the ticker symbol on the New York Stock Exchange prior to the combining of the two businesses.
   
   
3. Although Complainant filed for Federal and State Registration of the Veritas DGC and Veritas marks, each has been filed after the Respondents registered the domain names in issue.
   
   
4. On the other hand, Veritas DGC is a service mark under common law. Complainant has owned and used it continuously since August 29, 1996. Veritas is also a valid service mark under common law which complainant has used continuously since April, 1993.
   
   
5. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on February 20, 2000 with the Registrar Melbourne IT DBA Internet Names Worldwide.
   
   
6. Two weeks after registering the names, Respondent Arrich offered to "trade" the VERITASDGA.NET internet site for stock in the Complainant's corporation. Through a series of communications it was ascertained that Respondent had four domain names with the Veritasdga prefix and ending in.Net, .Org, .Cc, and .To. Complainant offered to purchase the disputed domain names for the expense that Respondent incurred in registering them. Respondent was not interested in such offer and claimed the sites are worth "millions." He next proposed selling them on the open market "to all competitors."
   
   
7. Respondents' sole purpose in registering the two domain names is to make a substantial profit upon selling them to the Complainant or to others.
   
   
8. The registered name "VERITASDGC.NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG", is identical, or confusingly similar, to the common law trademark in which Complainant has rights, and the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interests in respect to the domain names "VERITASDGC.NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG".
   
   
9. As to the two domain names in issue, Respondents' existence is for the sole purpose of improperly cybersquatting on the service mark of the Complainant.
   
   
10. Respondent has interposed no evidence that it has ever been known by any of the disputed domain names. On its web sites, which Verio Inc. hosts for Respondent for the disputed domain names, Respondent does not appear to have any original content other than to promote services that Verio, Inc. offers, and this content is virtually identical to what is shown on Verio, Inc.'s own web site. There has been no showing by the Respondent that there has been a use of the domain name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the notice of the dispute. Complainant's prayer for relief requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant .

CONCLUSIONS

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as Arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been duly selected, and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following findings and conclusions:

1. The domain names "VERITASDGC.NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG" are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's common law service marks "VERITAS DGC" and "VERITAS".

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to either of the domain names "VERITASDGC NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG".

3. The domain names "VERITASDGC NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG" have been registered and is being used in bad faith, in that the said domain names were registered and acquired for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring them to the Complainant, who is the owner of the common law service mark, or to a competitor for a valuable consideration in excess of the Respondents' out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names.

DECISION

Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(I),

it is decided as follows:

THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAMES "VERITASDGC.NET" and "VERITASDGC.ORG ", REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT, BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT .

Dated: May 8, 2000,

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2000/285.html