About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Methodics LLC v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Shiv Sikand

Case No. D2011-1315

1. The Parties

Complainant is Methodics LLC of San Francisco, California, United States of America, represented by Access International Law Group, United States of America.

Respondent is Domains by Proxy, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Shiv Sikand of Los Gatos, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <methodics.com> is registered with Blue Razor Domains, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2011. On August 1, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 4, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 9, 2011 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 13, 2011.

The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 17, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 6, 2011. The Response was filed with the Center on September 5, 2011.

The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

The Response transmitted by e-mail to the Center on September 5, 2011 stated that, without conceding the allegations of the Complaint, Respondent consented to the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain name requested by Complainant. The Center advised the parties by e-mail of September 6, 2011 that Complainant might wish to submit a request for suspension of the proceeding during which time the parties could explore a settlement. By e-mail of September 13, 2011, Complainant (through its counsel) advised the Center that it wished to proceed with the administrative proceeding, and the Center thereupon appointed the Panel.

4. Summary Determination

Complainant has alleged (1) ownership of rights in the trademark METHODICS in the United States of America and that the disputed domain name, <methodics.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark; (2) that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and; (3) that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Registrar, Blue Razor Domains, Inc., has confirmed that Respondent is registrant of the disputed domain name.

The Panel has reviewed the case file, and does not find evidence of intent on the part of Complainant to improperly take advantage of Respondent or the Policy. Respondent has consented to transfer to Complainant of the disputed domain name. The Panel considers it appropriate under the circumstances to accept the allegations put forward by Complainant as having been established sufficiently to satisfy the requirements for a finding of abusive domain name registration and use within the meaning of the Policy. The Panel determines that Complainant has established that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy, and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to Complainant. The remedial purposes of the Policy will be satisfied by that transfer.

5. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <methodics.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

Frederick M. Abbott
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 2, 2011