официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. [No Name]
Case No. D2000-0515
1. The Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business at One AMD Place, M.S. 68, P.O. Box 3453, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3453. The Respondent is [No Name], an unidentified registrant, located in Downey, CA 90241.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is as follows: advancedmicrodevices.com. The domain name was registered by Respondent with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) on June 3, 1999.
3. Procedural Background
On May 27, 2000, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center received from Complainant via e-mail a complaint for decision in accordance with the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 ("Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Supplemental Rules).
The complaint was filed in compliance with the requirements of the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, payment was properly made, the administrative panel was properly constituted, and the panelist submitted the required Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.
The instant Administrative Proceeding was commenced on June 5, 2000.
Respondent failed to file a Response, and a "Notification of Respondent Default," dated July 13, 2000, was forwarded by WIPO to Respondent.
The decision of the Panel was due to WIPO on or before September 13, 2000.
4. Factual Background
As alleged in the Complaint, Complainant is a leading manufacturer and distributor of computer hardware and software, semiconductor devices, microprocessor chips, and related goods and services under the name and mark ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES. On March 13, 1999, Complainant filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, as used on integrated circuits and semiconductor devices. See Complaint, Annex C. Complainant is the owner of a number of registrations in countries throughout the world for the mark ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES.
As noted above, Respondent registered the domain name advancedmicrodevices.com with NSI on June 3, 1999. On June 10, Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent’s administrative contact, Mr. Sanaxay Phommachanh, requesting that Respondent cease and desist from any unlawful use of the domain name. See Complaint, Annex E. Respondent’s contact did not respond to the letter.
On November 9, 1999, pursuant to Complainant’s request, NSI placed the domain name in dispute "on hold." See Complaint, Annex H. On December 6, Complainant’s counsel sent another letter to Respondent’s administrative contract in an attempt to settle the matter. See Complaint, Annex I. No response was received.
On January 3, 2000, NSI informed Complainant’s counsel that, pursuant to enactment of the Policy, the domain name would no longer be "on hold" as of February 1, 2000.
5. Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the domain name in issue is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith. In support of its argument relating to "bad faith," Complainant referred to Respondent’s failure to provide complete contact information for the domain name registration, in breach of Respondent’s warranty under paragraph 2(a) of the Policy 1. Complainant also argues that the passive holding of a domain name, which prevents Complainant from reflecting its corporate name and mark in a corresponding domain name, constitutes bad faith use and registration of the domain name.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel has carefully weighed the evidence presented and determines that Complainant has established all of the elements required under paragraph 4.a. of the Policy.
Respondent’s domain name advancedmicrodevices.com is legally identical to Complainant’s mark ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, which Complainant clearly has rights to through ownership of valid and subsisting trademark registrations, as well as through widespread use of the mark, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.
It is also clear that none of the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable. Respondent does not conduct any legitimate commercial or noncommercial business activity under the domain name in dispute and is not commonly known by the advancedmicrodevices.com domain name.
The Panel also finds the evidence, taken as a whole, supports a determination of "bad faith" registration and use. It has been held that the passive holding of a domain name can give rise to a finding of "bad faith" registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No D2000-0003 (February 18, 2000). Respondent’s failure to provide NSI with complete contact information is further evidence of "bad faith."
In view of the above, the Panel GRANTS Complainant’s request for transfer to it of the domain name advancedmicrodevices.com
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Dated: September 13, 2000
1. Paragraph 2(a) of the Policy states as follows: "By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate."