Marvelltechnology.com

The timeline behind marvelltechnology.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 Marvell International Ltd. v. Domain Admin Claim Number: FA0805001194790 PARTIES Complainant is Marvell International, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Gregory M. Krakau of Fish & Richardson P.C., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <marvelltechnology.com>, registered with 24X7Dom. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically May 22, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint May 27, 2008. On May 27, 2008, 24X7Dom confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <marvelltechnology.com> domain name is registered with 24X7Dom and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 24X7Dom verified that Respondent is bound by the 24X7Dom registration agreement and thereby has 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 30, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 19, 2008, 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@marvelltechnology.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 26, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <marvelltechnology.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARVELL mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <marvelltechnology.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <marvelltechnology.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Marvell International Ltd., operates a business that offers products and services for a variety of digital consumer appliances and enterprise networks. Complainant uses its MARVELL mark in connection with marketing of its technological goods and services. Complainant currently uses the <marvell.com> domain name in connection with its technological goods and services. Also, Complainant first registered its MARVELL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on July 31, 2001 (Reg. No. 2,474,135). Complainant currently uses the <marvell.com> domain name in connection with its technological goods and services. Respondent registered the <marvelltechnology.com> domain name May 14, 2008. On May 16, 2008, Respondent sent e-mail correspondence to Complainant offering to sell the disputed domain name for $7,500. and giving Complainant until 3 p.m., May 17, 2008 to respond to the offer or “… the domain may not be available any more.” The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 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." Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant provided evidence of the registration of its MARVELL mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds this registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the MARVELL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Inertia 3D, FA 1118154 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2008) (“Complainant asserts rights in the mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”). Respondent’s <marvelltechnology.com> domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s MARVELL mark with the addition of the descriptive term “technology,” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds the additions do not adequately distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s MARVELL mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <marvelltechnology.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARVELL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied). The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of its allegations. The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it possesses rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant made a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not possess rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). The record and WHOIS information do not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the <marvelltechnology.com> domain name. The record indicates Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its MARVELL mark. Also, the WHOIS information does not indicate Respondent is known by the <marvelltechnology.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in 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); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected). Respondent’s <marvelltechnology.com> domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent made no use of the infringing domain names). Additionally, Complainant has provided evidence that Respondent offered to sell Complainant the disputed domain name for $7,500. two days after the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel finds Respondent’s apparent willingness to quickly dispose of the disputed domain name in exchange for monetary compensation demonstrates Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose of marketing it to the owner of a corresponding trademark); see also Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <marvelltechnology.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that the respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). Additionally, Complainant submitted evidence that Respondent offered to sell Complainant the disputed domain name two days after the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel finds Respondent’s swift attempt to sell Complainant the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Deutsche Bank AG v. Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000) (finding that the name was registered in bad faith because of the short time frame between the respondent’s registration and the unsolicited offer of sale to the complainant); see also Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith based on the apparent willingness of the respondent to sell the domain name in issue from the outset, albeit not at a price reflecting only the costs of registering and maintaining the name). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied 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 <marvelltechnology.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: July 10, 2008. 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.