Hclperotsystems.com

The timeline behind hclperotsystems.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION PSC Management Limited Partnership v. PSC Management Limited Partnership Claim Number: FA0504000467747 PARTIES Complainant is PSC Management Limited Partnership (“Complainant”), represented by Cathryn Berryman, of Jenkens & Gilchrist, A Professional Corporation, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 3700, Dallas, TX 75202. Respondent is PSC Management Limited Partnership (“Respondent”), represented by Cheryl A. Setzer, 2300 West Plano Parkway, Plano, TX 75075. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hclperotsystems.com>, registered with Compana, Llc. 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. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 26, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 28, 2005. On May 2, 2005, Compana, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <hclperotsystems.com> is registered with Compana, Llc and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, Llc 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 May 11, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 31, 2005 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@hclperotsystems.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 18, 2005. On May 23, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant, PSC Management Limited Partnership, contends that 1. Respondent’s <hclperotsystems.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s various registered trademarks, including PEROT SYSTEMS, PEROTSYSTEMS (stylized), PEROT.COM, and PEROTSYSTEMS.COM, collectively referred to as the Perot Marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hclperotsystems.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <hclperotsystems.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent, PSC Management Limited Partnership, has stipulated that the domain name may be transferred to Complainant. FINDINGS Perot Systems Corporation (“Perot Systems”) is a world leader in the field of information technology and business consulting services, including systems management and systems integration. Through use and development, Perot Systems has created substantial goodwill and recognition throughout the world using the Perot Marks. Complainant, PSC Management Limited Partnership, is a Texas limited Partnership that is wholly owned by Perot Systems. Complainant is the owner of the Perot Marks, which are licensed to Perot Systems. 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. Both Complainant and Respondent are listed in WHOIS as the same party: PSC Management Limited Partnership. Prior to initiation of the Complaint, the Registrant of the <hclperotsystems.com> domain name was listed as Manila Industries, Inc. After Complaint was filed, the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain name was changed to “PSC Management Limited Partnership,” so it would appear that Complainant is the current Registrant of the domain name. However, the <hclperotsystems.com> domain name is password protected, and, as such, Complainant is unable to access the domain name and assert control of it. Therefore, Complainant filed an amended Complaint naming itself, PSC Management Limited Partnership, as Respondent, as the Registrant of the <hclperotsystems.com> domain name is reflected in WHOIS. Respondent, PSC Management Limited Partnership, then responded to the Complaint, agreeing to and authorizing transfer of the domain name to Complainant. The Panel may find that where such a stipulation is made, the Panel may forgo the usual UDRP analysis and need only order the transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where Respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”). 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 <hclperotsystems.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: June 6, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.