Micron Technology, Inc. v. International Research Center

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Micron Technology,

Inc. v. Null International Research Center

Case No.

D2001-0608

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Micron

Technology, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business

in Boise, Idaho, USA, represented by Hunton & Williams.

The Respondent is Null

International Research Center, an entity doing business in Arizona, USA, represented

by Weinberg Cummerford Legal Group.

2. The Domain Name and

Registrar

The domain name at issue

is <crucialtechnology.com>.

The domain name is registered

with CORE Internet Council of Registrars.

3. Procedural History

Complainant submitted its

Complaint to the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation

Center (the "Center") under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute

Resolution Policy (the "Policy") via e-mail on April 27, 2001, and

hardcopy on May 1, 2001. The Center acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on

April 30, 2001. Complainant amended its Complaint to use Respondent’s correct

name via e-mail and facsimile copy on May 3, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the Center

formally commenced this proceeding.

Respondent submitted its

Response via e-mail on May 26, 2001, and hardcopy on May 28, 2001. The

Center acknowledged receipt of the Response on May 28, 2001. Both Complainant

and Respondent (the "Parties") elected to decide this dispute by a

single-member Administrative Panel. On June 1, 2001, the Center notified the

Parties that David H. Bernstein had been appointed as the sole panelist in this

matter.

4. Factual Background

Complainant, a Fortune

500 company, is a manufacturer and provider of computer related goods and services

and has sales averaging several billion dollars per year. It owns trademarks

for "Crucial Technology" (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,316,486) and "Crucial

Technology and Design" (European Community Trademark Reg. No. 673053, U.S.

Trademark Reg. No. 2,331,855) (collectively the "Crucial Marks").

Product sales under the Crucial Marks for personal computer memory upgrades

are annually over $150 million.

Respondent registers and

offers for sale numerous domain names. Respondent also offers consulting services

for product placement and branding.

5. Parties’ Contentions

Complainant claims that

the domain name is functionally identical to the Crucial Marks. Complainant

argues that it has invested significant amounts of capital in advertising the

Crucial Marks, which has resulted in substantial consumer goodwill. Complainant

further claims that any consumer confusion as to Complainant’s connection with

the website will create false impressions that violate its trademark rights

under federal and international law.

Furthermore, Complainant

claims that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

In particular, Complainant alleges that Respondent has not engaged in business

under the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

Complainant also alleges

that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Specifically,

Complainant notes that Respondent does not have an active website at the domain

name in question and is offering it for sale. As a result, Complainant alleges

that Respondent acquired the domain name exclusively to sell it for profit.

Such acts, the Complainant pleads, violate the United States Anticybersquatting

Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). The Complainant, therefore, requests

that the domain name be transferred as provided by Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

In its defense, Respondent

claims that it has registered the domain name in good faith. Respondent registered

the domain name on October 5, 1999. However, Respondent notes that Complainant

received its registration for the Crucial Technology mark on February 8, 2000.

Respondent, therefore, claims it had no knowledge of Complainants’ use of the

mark when it registered the domain name. Moreover, Respondent claims it only

learned of the Crucial Marks upon receipt of a October 25, 2000, letter from

Complainant requesting transfer of the domain name. Given such events, Respondent

argues that it did not register the domain name to confuse Complainant’s customers

and thereby divert business in bad faith.

Moreover, Respondent claims

that it engages in a legitimate business and is therefore not a cybersquatter.

In particular, Respondent asserts that by registering generic domain names it

intentionally sought to avoid brand and trademark conflicts.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under Paragraph 4(a) of

the Policy, Complainant must establish each of the following elements in order

to state a claim for transfer of a domain name:

(1) that the domain

name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark

or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) that Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) that Respondent

has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly

Similar to Complainant’s Trademarks

The Panel finds, and Respondent

does not dispute, that the domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademarks.

B. Rights or Legitimate

Interests

Complainant alleges that

Respondent intends to profit from registering the domain name. Respondent replies

that its sale of domain names is a bona fide business practice in domain name

speculation. See Allocation Network GmbH v. Steve Gregory, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0016 (March 24, 2000).

The Panel agrees with the

Respondent that domain name speculation can be a legitimate interest if the

Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s trademark rights. See id.; Audiopoint,

Inc. v. eCorp., WIPO Case No. D2001-0509 (June 14, 2001);

General Machine Prods. Co. v. Prime Domains, No. FA0001000092531

(NAF March 16, 2000). Here, Complainant has proffered no evidence that Respondent

likely was aware of its trademark rights at the time it registered the domain

name or otherwise was targeting Complainant or its mark. This conclusion is

bolstered by the fact that Respondent has registered other, similar domain names

such as <populartechnology.com>, <thirdgenwireless.com>, <biotechrevolution.com>,

<seniorhealthissues.com> and <bravenewbiotech.com>. See Complaint,

Exhibit E. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on this admittedly truncated record,

that Complainant has failed to show that Respondent lacks a legitimate interest.

C. Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that

Respondent’s failure to post an active website at the domain name constitutes

bad faith. In support of this claim, Complainant cites Telstra Corp. Ltd.

v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.

D2000-0003 (February 18, 2000), which found that failure to develop a website

associated with a domain name could constitute bad faith use.

It is certainly true that,

under appropriate circumstances, nonuse of a domain name can establish bad faith.

In this case, however, Respondent certified that it was not aware of Complainant’s

unregistered marks at the time it registered the domain name at issue. Complainant

has provided no evidence of fame as of October 1999, indicating that Respondent

was likely to know of its unregistered marks at that time. Instead, the domain

name was registered as part of Respondent’s complement of descriptive and suggestive

technology-related domain names. Thus, unlike the situation in the Telstra case,

the Panel does not infer that the domain name was registered and is being held

for "ransom".

The Panel disagrees, though,

with Respondent’s assertion that it could not be engaged in cybersquatting because

it registered the domain name before Complainant’s mark was registered. That

is not the relevant date given that Complainant claims first use of its mark

(establishing common law rights) in 1996, and applied to register its mark

(thus fixing its priority date) in January 1999, both dates that predate

the domain name registration. Had Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s

rights, this decision likely would have reached a different conclusion, even

if <crucialtechnology.com> fit in a pattern of speculation in suggestive

and descriptive domain names. Because of an absence of such evidence, the Panel

determines that Complainant has not shown bad faith registration. Having registered

without bad faith, Respondent’s later offer to sell the domain name is not sufficient

to satisfy this element of the policy. Cf. e-Duction, Inc. v. John Zuccarini,

Case No. WIPO D2000-1369 (October 23, 2000),

(when respondent registered the domain name before complainant’s mark existed,

Panel could not find bad faith registration and use).

It is worth noting that

Respondent’s ability to exploit the domain name may be limited given Complainant’s

trademark registrations for CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY for computer components. Respondent,

or any purchaser of the domain name, should ensure that it does not use the

domain name in a way that gives rise to confusion, lest the use of the domain

name create infringement under state or national law. This decision, like all

UDRP decisions, is without prejudice to the filing of a new UDRP complaint should

a subsequent purchaser acquire and use the domain name in bad faith, such as

to divert consumers for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion

as to the source of its goods or services.

7. Decision

The Panel finds that Complainant

has failed to uphold its burden of proof under Paragraph 4 of the Policy. Complainant’s

request for transfer of the domain name is denied.

David H.

Bernstein

Sole Panelist

Dated: June

20, 2001

More cases by this complainant

• Micron Technology, Inc. v. ThisDomain isForSale — D2001-0712 · microncommunications.com · Complaint denied · 24 Jul 2001
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Hunt International — D2001-0501 · crucialmemory.com, microninternetservices.com, micronmemory.com · Transfer · 26 May 2001
• Micron Technology, Inc. — D2001-0186 · Terminated