Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/blue-max-technology-v-compudigital-industries/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:52:23+00:00

Document:
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - Common law trademark - Widespread name recognition - Identical - Confusingly similar - Legitimate interest - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - Creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants mark - Valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses.
Complainant owns and uses the common law trademark Blue Max in connection with computer-related products. In 1998, Complainants company was reincorporated under the name Blue Max Technology. Complainant also owns the domain name, bluemax.net. In 1996, Respondent registered the domain name, Bluemax.com. For a brief period, Respondent used the domain name in question to link users to a test page for an under construction auction site. Respondent has since stopped using the domain name in question completely.
Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights. Further, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Respondent used the domain name to attract users to the auction site prior to 1999. Attracting users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants mark as to the source of the website is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Moreover, Respondents current passive holding of the domain name constitutes bad faith use. Finally, Respondent offered the domain name for sale to Complainant and Complainants competitors for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses. All these serve as evidence of bad faith registration and use.
America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum).
Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum).
Hitachi, Ltd. V. Fortune Intil Dev. Ent, D2000-0412 (WIPO).
The Complainant is Blue Max Technology, Newbury Park, CA, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Compudigital Industries, Granite Bay, CA, USA ("Respondent").
The domain name at issue is "Bluemax.com", registered with Network Solutions Inc ("NSI").
Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís UDRP.
On July 10, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 31, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.
On August 3, 2000, pursuant to Complainants request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.
the domain name, and that the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant owns the common law trademark "Blue Max". From 1969 until 1998, the Complainants company name was International Instrumentation, Inc. while computer related products were known as Blue Max. Because of the widespread name recognition, in 1998 the Complainant reincorporated the company under the name Blue Max Technology. The Complainant uses the domain name <bluemax.net> to promote its services on the Internet.
The Respondent registered the domain name in question on May 3, 1996. In early 1999, the Respondent used the domain name in question to link users to a test page for an under construction auction site. During conversations with the Respondent, the Respondent stated that the domain name in question was an unused, available domain he owned for use in testing and developing an auction site. During the end of 1999, the Respondent stopped using the domain name in question completely.
In November 1999, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent to request that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant. One of the Respondents employees stated that the domain name was not being used and that he knew of no plans to use the domain name. He suggested that the Complainant make an offer to cover the Respondents expenses surrounding the domain name. Over the next few months, the Respondent refused the Complainants multiple offers (ranging from $200 to $10,000) and eventually started a bidding war over the domain name with another party.
The Complainant has common law rights in the mark BLUE MAX. The Respondents domain name is identical to the Complainants mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as "net" or "com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the site. Policy ? 4(c)(i), (iii). Failure to respond to the Complaint permits the inference that the use of the Complainants mark is misleading and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. See Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000.
Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding that passive holding of a domain name is use of the domain name in bad faith).
The Respondent used the domain name for a profit by offering it for sale to the Complainant and the Complainants competitors for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses. Policy ? 4(b)(i). See Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune Intíl Dev. Ent, D2000-0412 (WIPO July 2, 2000) (finding Respondents offer to sell the domain name for $100,000 constitutes bad faith).
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "Bluemax.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.