Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Brandy Carrillo THQ Inc., Calabasas Hills, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Brandy Carrillo, of THQ Inc. The Respondent is Hamid Ramezany, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "thq.net" registered with CORE.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on March 15, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 19, 2001.

On March 26, 2001, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "thq.net" is registered with CORE and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE 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 March 27, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 16, 2001 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@thq.net by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on April 16, 2001.

On April 23, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

The request to transfer the domain name to Complainant is hereby denied.

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.

The domain name is identical to Complainant's marks. See American Golf Corp. v. Perfect Web Corp., D2000-0908 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding that the domain name <americangolf.net> is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN GOLF marks); Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the Complainant’s famous NIKE mark).

Internet users trying to locate Complainant's products under its "THQ" marks will likely be confused by Respondent's domain name thq.net. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Respondent appears to have legitimate rights in the domain name thq.net. Respondent successfully demonstrated that a version of his product exists under the name "The Highest Qualification Network". The domain name thq.net is an acronym of the business name "The Highest Qualification Network". Respondent is within his rights to secure a domain name, develop products and seek funding prior to a full commercial launch of the web site under the domain name.

Respondent did not register thq.net in bad faith. Suspicions are raised by the many domain names purchased by Respondent and by the business name SLO-DOMAIN-FOR-SALE. However, suspicions raised by a pattern of activity cannot overcome a showing of legitimate business interests in this particular domain name.

Since all three of the elements were not present in this case, the request to transfer the domain name thq.net to Complainant is hereby denied.