|
The
Parties Information
|
|
|
|
Claimant
|
Embassy of Lebanon
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
Alex Fang
|
|
|
|
Procedural
History
|
|
|
|
The disputed domain name is
<www.lebanonembassy.org>.
The Registrar with which the
disputed domain name is registered is NameScout Corp., White park
House, White Park Road, Bridgetown,
Barbados.
The Complaint
was filed with the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre,
Hong Kong Office (the “Centerâ€ﾝ)
on 27 October, 2003 and 29 October 2003 (hard copy and electronic
copy respectively). On 15 December 2003, the Center transmitted
by
email to NameScout Corp. a request for registrar verification in
connection with the domain name at issue. The Registrar
confirmed
that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the
contact details for the administrative, billing,
and technical
contact. The Center verified that the Complaint, satisfied the
formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution
Policy (the “Policyâ€ﾝ),
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Rulesâ€ﾝ),
and the ADNDRC Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental
Rulesâ€ﾝ).
The
Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint on 4
November 2003. In accordance with the Rules, the Response
was
required to be submitted to the Centre within 20 calendar days
from 4 November 2003. The Respondent did not submit any
response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s
default on 26 November 2003.
The Center appointed Dr.
Vinod K. Agarwal as the sole panelist in this matter. The Panelist
finds that it was properly constituted.
The Panel has submitted
the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and
Independence, as required by the Center
to ensure compliance with
the Rules, paragraph 7. The Panelist is required to give its
decision within 14 days from the date
of receiving the documents.
The Panelist received the documents on 1st January 2004.
|
|
|
|
Factual
Background
|
|
|
|
For
Claimant
|
|
|
|
The Complainant is the Embassy of Lebanon in
the United States of America. It is providing the same services as
are provided
by a mission of a country in another country.
|
|
|
|
For
Respondent
|
|
|
|
The Respondent did not submit any reply.
Hence, the Respondent’s activities are not
known.
|
|
|
|
Parties'
Contentions
|
|
|
|
Claimant
|
|
|
|
The Complainant contends that each of the
three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy
are applicable to
this dispute.
In relation to element (i), the
Complainant Embassy of Lebanon contends that there is no specific
trademark violation involved
in this case. The web site
www.lwbanonembassy.org belonged to the Complainant. It
accidentally allowed the domain to expire.
The following day it
was registered by Mr. Lee. He was requested to transfer the domain
name back to the Embassy. Mr. Lee asked
for $ 5,000 to return it.
The Complainant refused to pay and attempted to negotiate with him
over the next six months without
success. As a precaution, the
Complainant also “back-orderedâ€ﾝ
the name as the expiration date
was approaching. During the proceedings, the domain name
registration expired. As per the “back-orderingâ€ﾝ
policy of the Registrar, a “30
day registry redemption periodâ€ﾝ
is allowed during which the
owner could renew it. However, the Respondent somehow registered
the domain name during this 30
day period.
In relation to
element (ii), the Complainant contends that the Respondent (as an
individual) has not been commonly known by
the domain name
<www.lebanonembassy.org> as the Respondent is known as
“Mr. Alex Fangâ€ﾝ.
Further that the Respondent is not making a legitimate or fair use
of the said domain name for offering goods and services.
The
Respondent registered the domain name for the sole purpose of
misleading and misdirecting the public to unintended sites.
Regarding the element at (iii), the Complainant contends
that the main object of registering the domain name
<www.lebanonembassy.org>
by the Respondent is to mislead the
general public and the customers of the Complainant.
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
The Respondent did not submit any reply.
|
|
|
|
Findings
|
|
|
|
Identical
/ Confusingly Similar
|
|
|
|
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the
Complainant must prove that:
(i) The domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii)
The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The
present dispute pertains to the domain name
<www.lebanonembassy.org>. The
Complainant is the Embassy
of a sovereign nation, namely, Lebanon in the United States of
America. The Complainant owned and
possessed the site www.lebanon
embassy.org. Before the Complainant could renew its registration
of the web site in question,
the Respondent registered it. The web
site <lebanonembassy.org> is similar or identical to the
name of the Complainant.
There is a relationship between the web
site and the Complainant. Thus, the Panelist finds that the domain
name is confusingly
similar to the name of the Complainant.
|
|
|
|
Rights
and Legitimate Interests
|
|
|
|
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According
to Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may demonstrate
its rights to or legitimate interest in the domain
name by proving
any of the following circumstances:
(i) before any notice
to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s
use of, or demonstrable preparations
to use, the domain name or a
name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services;
or
(ii) the Respondent (as
an individual) has been commonly known by the domain name, or
(iii) The Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or
fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to
misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the name of an
Embassy.
The Respondent has not filed any response in this
case. Based on the default and the evidence in the Complaint, it
is presumed
that the above circumstances do not exist in this case
and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the
disputed domain name. Further, in view of the fact that the
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent
to use its name or to apply for or use the domain name
incorporating said name and that nobody would use the expression
“Embassy of Lebanonâ€ﾝ
unless seeking to create an
impression of an association with the Complainant, the Panelist
finds that the Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name.
|
|
|
|
Bad
Faith
|
|
|
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph
4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances,
in particular but without limitation, shall be
considered evidence
of the registration or use of the domain name in bad faith:
(i)
circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or
acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to
the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of
documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii)
the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent
the Complainant from renewing the domain name already
registered
and owned by it.
(iii) The Respondent has registered the
domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business
of the Complainant;
or
(iv) By using the domain name, the
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, internet users to
its web site or other on-line location, by
creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s
site.
The contention of the Complainant is that there is a
clear evidence of the fact that the earlier registrant Mr. Lee and
the
present registrant Mr. Alex Fang are in collusion as Mr.
Lee’s reference appears at the site. Mr. Lee
had
offered the said site for sale to the Complainants. Thus, the
registration of its web site immediately after its registration
expired constitutes a bad faith registration and use.
This
and other information submitted by the Complainant leads to the
presumption that the said domain name was registered and
used by
the Respondent in bad faith. The Panelist agrees with the said
contention of the Complainant and concludes that the
registration
of the domain name amounts to the registration and use of the
domain name in bad faith.
|
|
|
