WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2000 >> [2000] GENDND 30

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

ALLERGAN, INC. v. David Ostad [2000] GENDND 30 (8 March 2000)


National Arbitration Forum

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

COMPLAINANT

ALLERGAN, INC.

2525 Dupont Drive

Irvine, CA 92612

Attn: Susan J. Hinchey

Telephone: 714-246-5507 Fax: 714-246-4249

E-Mail Address: Hinchey susan@allergan.com

RESPONDENT

David Ostad

65 Hickory Drive

East Hills, NY 12576

Telephone: 516-606-3319 Fax: 516-759-0195

E-Mail Address: Mysurgeon@aol.com

File Number: FA0001000092974

  • Domain name: BOTOX.NET.
  • Domain name registrar: Network Solutions.
  • Date of domain registration: July 27, 1998.
  • Date of Complaint: January 29, 2000.
  • Date Response Due: February 21, 2000.

Findings

The Claimant is an Irvine, California-based seller of pharmaceutical products under the name of BOTOX. It owns three U.S. trademark registrations for BOTOX. The Respondent is a physician who practices plastic surgery in New York. The Claimant wrote to the Respondent on January 27, 1999, requesting that the Respondent cease the use of the BOTOX domain name. The Claimant received no response.

Representatives of the Claimant had two telephone conversations with the Respondent in April, 1999. In one conversation, the Respondent stated that he wanted $5,000 for the site. In the other, he increased his demand to $10,000.

The Respondent has not used the domain name for any purpose. When access to the site is attempted, the message "error" appears. The Claimant believes that as a physician, the Respondent is aware of its products and its name BOTOX.

Conclusions

    • The name BOTOX which the Respondent registered is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
    • The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the name BOTOX.
    • The Respondent registered the name BOTOX for the primary purpose of selling the name to the Complainant who is the owner of the registered trademark. He accordingly has acted in bad faith.

Decision

The Respondent’s domain name registration in BOTOX is transferred to the Claimant.

Robert S. Brandt

Arbitrator

Date: March 8, 2000


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2000/30.html