Sanitech.com

The timeline behind sanitech.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 Sanitech Corporation v. Dave Paton Claim Number: FA0703000935273 PARTIES Complainant is Sanitech Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by William Hannigan, 7207-H Lockport Place, Lorton, VA 22079. Respondent is Dave Paton (“Respondent”), represented by John Karl Buche, of Buche & Associates, P.C., 777 Fay Avenue, Suite 205, La Jolla, CA 92037. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sanitech.com>, registered with 000Dom. 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. David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 12, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 12, 2007. On March 13, 2007, 000Dom confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sanitech.com> domain name is registered with 000Dom and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 000Dom has verified that Respondent is bound by the 000Dom 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 19, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 9, 2007 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@sanitech.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 9, 2007. On April 16, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i.) Complainant owns a federal service mark registration for SANITECH. Respondent registered the domain name <sanitech.com>. ii.) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. iii.) The domain name has been used in bad faith, but has not been registered in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent raises defenses of concurrent court proceedings, laches and acquiescence. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 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 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; (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. While the Complainant alleges that the domain name is being used in bad faith, Complainant also expressly admits that “The domain name was not registered in bad faith.” Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy expressly requires a showing of both registration and use in bad faith. As Complainant has not adequately alleged, much less satisfied the requirements of ¶ 4(a)(iii), Complainant’s request for transfer of its domain name must be denied. See The Thread.com LLC v. Poploff, D2000-1470 (WIPO Jan. 5, 2001) (finding that the respondent “did not have the requisite bad faith when he registered the Domain Name, which is an express requirement of the Policy”); see also Creative Paradox LLC v. Talk Am., FA 155175 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding no bad faith registration of the domain name where the Panel found evidence that the respondent was authorized to register the disputed domain name by the complainant). DECISION Having failed to establish both bad faith elements required under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. DAVID A. EINHORN, Panelist Dated: April 30, 2007 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.