Nssc.com

The timeline behind nssc.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 Nuclear Security Services Corporation v. Triple Canopy Group Inc Claim Number: FA0510000587525 PARTIES Complainant is Nuclear Security Services Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by David C. Brezina, of Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60606-2809. Respondent is Triple Canopy Group Inc (“Respondent”), 429 W. Ohio Street # 200, Chicago, IL 60610. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nssc.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. 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 October 26, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 28, 2005. On November 2, 2005, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nssc.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 November 2, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 22, 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@nssc.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 30, 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. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <nssc.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s NSSC mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nssc.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <nssc.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Nuclear Security Services Corporation, provides security services specializing in high risk targets. These services include consultation, training, and anti-terrorist preparation, providing facilities management software and control systems, namely, software and control systems to control building access, security systems, and monitoring systems for nuclear facilities and other secured facilities, custom design, engineering, and technical consultation in the field of security and surveillance systems used in nuclear facilities and other secured facilities and consulting services in the nature of installations, testing, and monitoring of surveillance and security systems used in nuclear facilities and other secured facilities and performing security surveys for such facilities. Complainant began using the NSSC mark in connection with its security service business since early 1986. Complainant alleges common law rights in the NSSC mark and submits electronic and print media and commercial documents in support of its allegations. Respondent, Triple Canopy Group, Inc., registered the disputed domain name on November 26, 2003. Complainant alleges that it contacted Respondent, and Respondent offered to sell the <nssc.com> domain name registration for “several thousand dollars.” Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to refer Internet Traffic to Complainant’s competitor. Now, the disputed domain name refers to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of 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." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has submitted electronic and print media and commercial documents as evidence of the secondary meaning associated with the NSSC mark. The Panel finds that Complainant’s NSSC mark has acquired secondary meaning as a source identifier and, therefore, is a common law mark pursuant to the Policy. See generally SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of [KEPPEL BANK] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”). The Panel finds that the <nssc.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s NSSC mark. The only difference between the domain name and the mark is the addition of the top-level domain “.com,” which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests The website associated with Respondent’s domain name referred to Complainant’s competitor. The Panel finds that appropriating another’s mark to refer Internet traffic to a competitor is not a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”). There is nothing in the record, including the WHOIS registration information, which indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the disputed domain name to refer to Complainant’s competitor. The Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Gen. Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of the complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); Travant Solutions, Inc. v. Cole, FA 203177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because it is operating on behalf of a competitor of Complainant . . .”). Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for “several thousand dollars.” The Panel finds that this amount is in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs and, therefore, is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See John C. Nordt Co. v. Jewelry Exch., FA 96789 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2001) (finding that the respondent exhibited bad faith when the respondent, a competitor of the complainant, attempted to sell a domain name, which was identical to the complainant’s MOTHER’S RING mark, to the complainant for a profit); World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t., Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that the respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <nssc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: December 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.