That the Policy applied to the disputed domain name
That the Respondent was the current registrant of the disputed domain name
That the status of the disputed domain name was “active”
That the language of the service agreement was English.
On April 4, 2002, the WIPO Center requested that the Complainant file an Amendment to the Complaint, as the Complaint as originally filed did not correctly identify the Respondent. The Amended Complaint (hereafter referred to as “the Complaint”) was received via email on April 5, 2002, and in hard copy on April 9, 2002.
On April 11, 2002, the WIPO Center transmitted a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent. The Respondent was advised that a response to the Complaint was required within 20 calendar days; i.e., by May 1, 2002.
On May 1, 2002, a Response was received from the Respondent.
On June 6, 2002, the WIPO Center advised the parties that an Administrative Panel had been appointed, consisting of a three member Panel. The Panel finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.
The Panel has independently determined and agrees with the assessment of the WIPO Center that the Complaint meets the formal requirements of the Rules and of the Supplemental Rules.
The Complainant produces and supplies a product known as “NTMail”. NTMail is a mail server for the Internet that runs on the Windows NT platform.
The Respondent operates an Internet hosting business called Corporate Web Solutions, founded in 1997. It specialises in NT Web Hosting services.
On March 2, 1998, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Initially, the Respondent used the site to promote a product known as Imail. Subsequently, the Respondent approached other vendors of NT mail server software about carrying their products on the website and signed up another vendor, MVIMail.
In June 1998, the Respondent contacted the Complainant. It informed the Complainant that it operated a site dedicated to NT mail services, which would promote the products of multiple vendors.
On August 19, 1998, the Complainant entered into a “Memorandum of Understanding for NTMail & NTList” appointing the Respondent as an authorised reseller for the Complainant’s products. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding was annexed to the Response.