Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
DRS 02204
Comtec Enterprises Ltd v. Mr Mark Corden t/a Comtec
Decision of Independent Expert

1.	Parties:
Complainant:	Comtec Enterprises Ltd 
Country:		GB

Respondent:	Mr Mark Corden trading as Comtec (or Comtec Computers)
Country:		GB

2.	Domain Name:
comtec.co.uk (“the Domain Name”)
3.	Procedural Background:
24/11/2004	Dispute entered into system
25/11/2004	Complaint hardcopies received
30/11/2004	Complaint validated
30/11/2004	Complaint documents generated and sent to Respondent
22/12/2004	Electronic Response entered into system
22/12/2004	Electronic Response matched
22/12/2004	Response hardcopies received
22/12/2004	Forward response to complainant documents generated
05/01/2005	Reply entered into system
05/01/2005	Electronic Reply matched
05/01/2005	Electronic Reply entered into system.
05/01/2005	Reply hardcopies received
05/01/2005	Initiate mediation documents generated
24/01/2005	Mediation documents generated
07/02/2005	Fees received for Expert from complainant on 07/02/2005
08/02/2005	Mr. Iain M Tolmie selected as expert
3.1.	On the 8th February 2005, I (Iain M. Tolmie, the undersigned, “the Expert”) was contacted by the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service and I confirmed to them that:
“I am independent of each of the parties. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no facts or circumstances, past or present, or that could arise in the foreseeable future, that need be disclosed as they might be of a such a nature as to call in to question my independence in the eyes of one or both of the parties.”
3.2.	I was appointed as the Independent Expert for this Case as from 14th February 2005 to respond on or before 28th February 2005.
4.	Outstanding Formal/Procedural Issues:
4.1.	There are no outstanding formal or procedural issues.
5.	The Facts:
5.1.	Comtec Enterprises has been in operation since 1994, and became a registered Limited Company (Comtec Enterprises Ltd.) on 18th May 1999.  The company also trades under the name “Comtec” as an abbreviation for “Comtec Enterprises Ltd.”.  The company is the registered owner of the Domain Name “comtec.com”.
5.2.	The Respondent currently trades as “Comtec” and has produced evidence that he did so in 1985 and 1990 (from official correspondence), other documents in 1982 and 1988, an extract of accounts from 1986, a letter (dated 19 July 2004) from the accountants who created those accounts saying that he “has been self employed in excess of 20 years” and some advertising copy from “Yellow Pages” addressed to Comtec in 1998.  The Complainant’s legal representative challenges that the Respondent has been trading in that way for so long, and points out that a company – Comtec Computer Services Ltd. – is now defunct.  The Respondent has tried to show his early use of the name “comtec” but has not produced contemporaneous information.  The Complainant has produced no specific evidence to refute the Respondent’s statements, and the Respondent has signed a declaration of truth on his Response.  On consideration of the evidence before me, and for the purposes of this Complaint, I find as fact that the Respondent has traded as “comtec” (or variations) either as a sole trader or in other forms since 1985.
5.3.	The Respondent is the registered owner of “sitemedia.co.uk” and became the registered owner of “comtec.co.uk” on 1st November 2004.
5.4.	From the evidence produced by the Respondent, there are a large number of other UK traders or companies with “comtec” in their name, the majority of which are in the computing or computer services industry.
5.5.	Whilst it is not the Expert’s role to investigate any claim or to gather appropriate evidence, it seemed reasonable in this case to explore the general background.  A simple search on “comtec” using Google produced the following domain names – all of which appear to me (from the accompanying text) to be companies in the computing or computer service industries:
comtechsolutions.com; comtec.ca; comtec-computer.de; comtecorlando.com; comtec.teleca.sa; comtecok.com; comtec.co.de; comtec.pl; comtec-consulting.it; comtec-europe.co.uk; comtec.co.il; comtec.co.kr; comtec-it.com; comtec.co.za; comtec.cl.
5.6.	From a cursory examination of the information from the search, the following appear as the source or “meaning” of “comtec”, the first is in the greatest preponderance, the second covers most of the remainder, the last two I noticed only once each:
Computer Technology, Communications Technology, Combat Technology, Comfort Technology (heating boilers)
5.7.	I therefore find as fact that the name “comtec” is in wide use within the computing and computer service industry, both in the UK and the world at large.
6.	The Parties’ Contentions:
6.1.	It is usual for the Expert to summarise the submissions, however, in view of my decision on this case, I have decided that it is best to display the submissions with little editing or summarising.
Complainant
6.2.	The Complainant’s submissions (made on its behalf by a solicitor) are as follows:
I confirm that Domain Name(s) in dispute are identical or similar to a name or mark in which I have Rights.
I confirm that Domain Name(s) in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.
1. The Complainant has been operating since 1994, and became a registered company on the 18th May 1999 (Exhibit A). 
2. The Complainants registered office is at Unit 13, Mitcham Industrial Estate, Streatham Road, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 2AP. A branch office is based in Reigate, Surrey. The Complainant also trades under the name ‘Comtec’ as an abbreviation for Comtec Enterprises Ltd. 
{3 - 5 discuss the size and extent of the Complainants business and its ownership of the Domain Name comtec.com}
6. The Complainant therefore is concerned that the Respondent has acquired and registered the domain name ‘comtec.co.uk’ which may cause confusion between the two businesses and foreseeable damage to the Complainant. This is in contrast to ‘comtec.net’ owned by Comtec Distributing which is a heating company that cannot possibly be confused with the Complainant (Exhibit C). 
7. The Respondent is trading as Comtec Computers (not to be confused with Comtec Computers Ltd of 96-98 Merritt Road, Greatstone, New Romney, Kent, TN28 8SZ (Exhibit D)). The Respondents registered address for the purpose of the domain name is P O Box 300, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 2GP (Exhibit E) but enquiries by the Complainants solicitor have established the trading address to be 26, Lansdowne Street, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 2QZ which is believed to be the Respondents home address (Exhibit D).
8. The Respondent is trading as a computer company, and acquired the domain name ‘comtec.co.uk’ on the 1st November 2004. 
{9 and 10 discuss an alleged attempt to sell the name to the highest bidder}.
11. The Complainant therefore submits that he has a right to ‘comtec.co.uk’ as similar if not identical to the Complainant’s registered name, trading name and current registered domain name ‘comtec.com’. 
12. The Complainant also submits that the issue of Abusive Registration must also be considered given the similarities between the Parties businesses. The Complainant contends that it is reasonably fair to say that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant ownership and use of ‘comtec.com’. The Respondent has therefore secured ‘comtec.co.uk’ thus knowing likely detriment will be caused to the Complainants business, and this is unfair advantage. 
{13. Complains of nat making use of the domain and pointing the Domain Name to another domain name }. 
{14. Complains of a “blocking registration} 
{15. complains that the Respondent is a competitor in the computer industry, and suggests a trend of confusion and passing off.} 
16. The Complainant alleges that the domain name ‘comtec.co.uk’ will likely confuse internet users who believe that they are contracting with the Complainant when in fact they are contracting with the Respondent and this is detrimental to the Complainant. The issue of ‘passing off’ must also be considered. 
17. In summary the Complainant feels that the Respondents registration of the domain name is likely to cause their business foreseeable harm by creating confusion between the two businesses thereby also causing the Complainant unfair detriment and giving the Respondent an unfair advantage. The Respondent may cause unfair disruption to the Complainants business. Furthermore, the Complainant questions the Respondents original intention for acquiring the domain name when he reasonably would have been aware of the Complainants rights. 
18. The Complainant therefore seeks that if his complaint is upheld for the domain name comtec.co.uk to be transferred to them.
Respondent
6.3.	The Respondent’s submission is as follows:
1. I received the complaint on 1st December 2004 
2. I object to the Complaint and ask that the Expert does not grant the Complainant the remedy that he has asked for. 
3. The registration in the hands of the Respondent is not abusive because:-
a. The name inherent in the domain name (Comtec) is one I have been known by my customers and by official bodies such as Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for twenty years. The Respondent has been trading in the repair, maintenance and sales of Office and Computer equipment since 1982….more than ten years longer than the Complainant and has had its accounts audited by a chartered accountant for more than twenty years (Exhibit A). The Respondent has been trading under the names of Comtec, Comtec Computers and Comtec Computer Services Ltd since 1985 – see below 
b. The Respondent has been registered for VAT with Customs and Excise under the trading name ‘Comtec’ since 1st July 1985 (Exhibit B). 
c. The Respondent has been had its annual accounts prepared under the trading name ‘Comtec’ by a Chartered Accountant since 1986 (Exhibit C). 
{d. – g. refer to 4 other documents dated in 1983, 1988 and 1998} 
h. The Respondent has operated the telephone number 0707 4 COMTEC for more than ten years. 
4. The Domain Name comtec.co.uk was purchased as it was publicly available to register. It is a single word generic name. The Respondent is making no attempt to ‘pass off’ or infringe on the rights of the Complainant in any way. The geographical distance of 186 miles between the two ‘Comtec’s’ would make ‘passing off’ or trading under the other Comtec’s name highly unlikely if not impossible in practical terms. 
5. The name Comtec is generic (also commonly spelt as Comtech or Comtek) and is widely used within the Computer and Computer Services industry as a name meaning e.g. Computer Technology. A search at Companies House reveals more than twenty Comtec derived Limited Companies operating in the UK (Exhibit J) and there are many more ‘un-registered’ companies and sole traders using Comtec derived names. The name Comtec is also used in other industries e.g. Combat Technology (Exhibit K). 
6. The Respondent offers IT solutions and services to most sectors of industry and education, specializing in small businesses and operates mainly in the North West of England and occasionally farther a field, including Ireland, Portugal, Germany, South Africa, Cyprus and France. The services include (but by no means are exhaustive) supply of custom built PC and Macintosh computers, supply of software solutions, maintenance and networking/network cabling. 
7. The Respondent acquired the domain name comtec.co.uk on the 1st November 2004 and intends to develop a website to advertise the above services – this is under construction at the moment (Exhibit L) and will hopefully be finished in the first quarter of 2005. 
8. The Respondent is using sales@comtec.co.uk as its primary email address – this is even being used by the Complainants solicitor in correspondence with the Respondent (Exhibit M) 
9. The Complainant alleges that the domain name comtec.co.uk will likely confuse Internet users who believe that they are contacting the Complainant when in fact they are contacting the Respondent. There is no proof in that statement by the Complainant, in fact, if a search is made for ‘Comtec’ on the Internet using two of the most widely used directories namely Yell.com and Thompsonlocal.com, the Respondents ‘Comtec is listed in both directories, whereas the Complainant is only listed in one (Exhibits N and O) 
10. The Complaint is misleading because the Complainant makes hypothetical statements in his complaint without giving any evidence to support the statements, and they should be dismissed from the complaint:- 
a. “the Complainant feels that the Respondents registration of the domain name is likely to cause their business foreseeable harm by creating confusion between the two businesses” 
b. “The Respondent may cause unfair disruption to the Complainants business.” 
11. The Complainant states that a substantial number of persons are reliant upon the Complainant for their salary – the Respondent does not see the relevance of the statement in the context of the Respondent acquiring the domain name comtec.co.uk and notes that no evidence has been provided to show that the Complainants employee’s salaries have been adversely affected.
12. The Complainant is using the DRS in bad faith and simply wishes to obtain a desirable domain name after the Respondent declined an offer to sell the domain name to him (Exhibit P). This is reinforced by the facts that :- 
a. The Complainant claims that his business will suffer by the Respondents registration of the domain name comtec.co.uk….it being similar to his comtec.com, yet the Complainant has not made any attempt to register other similar .uk domain names such as comtec.uk.com, comtec.ltd.uk, comtec.uk.net and others which are still available to register today (Exhibits Q and R). 
b. The Complainants registered name is Comtec Enterprises Ltd., yet the Complainant has not registered any of the relevant Comtec Enterprises domain names such as comtecenterprises.co.uk (or .com) to stop potential companies ‘passing off’ as ‘his’ Comtec or benefiting as he claims from his comtec.com domain name (Exhibit S). 
{13.-14 the Respondent denies that he intentionally put comtec.co.uk on the market}
15. In summary the Respondent feels fully justified in registering the domain name comtec.co.uk having traded in Computer sales, Computer Services and maintenance under the name Comtec, Comtec Computers and Comtec Computer Services Ltd for more than twenty years – more than twice as long as the Complainant. 
16. The Respondent therefore seeks that the Complaint be turned down and for the domain name comtec.co.uk to remain with the Respondent.
Complainant’s Reply
6.4.	The Complainant has made a Reply in the following terms:
1. We received the Respondent’s Response (hard copy with attachments) to the Complainant’s Complaint on the 24th December 2004. We Reply as follows; 
{2. – 11 make detailed points disputing  the Respondent’s evidence of trading under the name of “comtec” and have been left out for brevity}
12. At this stage on having completed a brief summary of the Respondents attachments it is important to summarise the notable trend. First, it is clear that all of the attachments are dated prior to 1990 before Comtec Computer Services Ltd was dissolved, and therefore the Complainant challenges as to what businesses the documents relate. Second, the documents relate to various company titles, and the Respondent has failed to prove that the documents relate to his current trading status Third, the Respondent’s address set on each document varies on at least five occasions, and upon comparison of the document dates there are inconsistencies. Finally, it is interesting to note that no recent accounts have been submitted by the Respondent to demonstrate its pre-acquisition domain name trading status. 
13. The Respondent at paragraph 4 of the Response confirms that he purchased the domain name comtec.co.uk but is making no attempt to “Pass Off” or infringe the rights of the Complainant in any way. The Respondent relies upon the geographical distance between the Complainant and Respondent. The Complainant respectfully submits that the Respondent has misunderstood the legal standing of Passing Off where confusion can be created between two similar businesses or products. Furthermore, the internet domain has created a trading industry where markets are no longer defined by geographical location but instead by country (.for example .gov.uk etc). The Complainant operates throughout the United Kingdom. 
14. The Respondent at paragraph 5 of the Response has endeavoured to rely upon the generic definition of ‘comtec’ but this is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether the Parties have a right to the domain name comtec.co.uk and secondly whether an abuse has occurred. The Complainant would submit they have a right to the domain name by their name, trading status and current ownership of comtec.com. The Complainant further submits it has proven that the Respondents ownership of comtec.co.uk is an abuse in that confusion is likely to occur in the market when a customer wishes to contract with the Complainant but mistakenly uses comtec.co.uk as opposed to comtec.com. The Parties are in identical industries. This is markedly different to the registered owner of comtec.net where confusion is unlikely to occur as the owner of comtec.net is in an unrelated industry; The Complainant is a registered limited company which has been trading under the comtec.com domain for some years prior to the Respondents recent acquisition of the comtec.co.uk and therefore was first to acquire the right. 
15. We refer to paragraph 6 of the Response where the Respondent confirms his current business practices, and further business services are set out on the Respondents web page comtec.co.uk attached herewith as ‘Exhibit B”. The Respondent is clearly seeking to take unfair advantage of the confusion between the two Parties. It is noteable that the webpage at Exhibit B states that the Respondent is Comtec Computer’s and the copyright refers to the same. 
16. We refer to paragraph 8 of the Response which confirms the Respondent is using the e-mail address sales@comtec.co.uk which is markedly similar to the Complainants sales@comtec.com. Foreseeable confusion can occur between the two; 
17. We refer to paragraph 10 of he Response. We respectfully disagree with the Respondents allegation that the Complainant’s complaint is misleading because there is a genuine concern that confusion is likely to arise between the owners of comtec.com and comtec.co.uk. The Complainant upon identifying the Respondents acquisition of comtec.co.uk on the 1st November 2004 contacted the Respondent without delay to resolve their legitimate concern. It was apparent from the Respondents webpages that he was selling domain names (as set out in the original complaint) and therefore the Complainant made a commercial decision to enquire whether a compromise may be agreed for the acquisition of the domain name without undue legal costs or damage to either Parties reputation;
{18}; 
{19. denies using the DRS in bad faith} 
{20 expresses concern about the Respondents future intentions with the Domain Name} 
21. In summary the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has failed to rebut the allegation set out within the original Complaint. In particular the Respondent has failed to consider the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution previous Decisions set out within R&G Advertising & Marketing Limited –v- Ray Gill Advertising (DRS 00446), Watermark Group Plc –v- Watermark Recruitment Bureau (DRS 00657), and Helvetia Swiss Insurance Company Ltd –v- Helvetia Group (DRS 01210). 
22. The Complainant therefore invites Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service to find in its favour, and transfer to it the domain name comtec.co.uk.
7.	Discussion and Findings:
Registering Domain Names in the “.uk” registry
7.1.	For simplicity and for the convenience of potential registrants of the many thousands of Domain Names registered each day, Nominet operates an automated “first come first served” policy in the registration of domain names.  Names are deemed available if nobody else has previously registered them.  The Respondent registered an available name on this “first come first served” basis.
The Dispute Resolution Service, Policy and procedure
7.2.	Nominet through its Dispute Resolution Service [DRS] provides a simple and accessible administrative procedure for dealing with the majority of straightforward mistakes or abuses which can occasionally arise (as explained in Nominet’s DRS Policy and Procedures).  It is worthy of note that this occurs in only about 0.05% of the total registrations.  This administrative procedure is limited in its scope by the defined Policy and Procedure and is not (for example) a suitable forum for arguing the finer points of the law as to “passing off”.
7.3.	The Respondent undertook the condition of complying with the DRS when he registered the Domain Name.  The Complainant undertook to comply with the policy when submitting his complaint.
7.4.	The Nominet web site contains extensive help for Complainants and Respondents which explains clearly how to submit a Complaint or Response.  It gives clear reminders of what appropriate evidence should be submitted.  It is also makes clear that it is the Complainant’s responsibility to prove his case.
Burden of Proof
7.5.	In order for a Complainant to succeed he must (under Paragraph 2 of the DRS Policy) prove to the Expert, on the balance of probabilities, both:
i	that he has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and
ii	that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Policy.
7.6.	Rights are defined in the Policy as:
Rights includes, but is not limited to, rights enforceable under English law.  However, a Complainant will be unable to rely on rights in a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business;
Complainants Rights
7.7.	The Complainant does not claim ownership of a protected mark (e.g. trademark) of any kind containing the name “comtec” within it, and relies upon the established use of the company name, Comtec Enterprises Ltd, which became a registered Limited Company on 18th May 1999.
7.8.	The set of letters “comtec” are part of the Complainant’s company name, however the second part of the name is the generic word “enterprises”.  “Comtec” is the Domain Name in dispute – after removing (as is usual) the “.co.uk”.  It would be simple, and in most cases logical, to move from one to the other and say that they are similar, and in many cases that would be sufficient to establish the necessary Rights to satisfy the DRS Policy.
7.9.	However, Rights do not necessarily automatically accrue just because there is a correspondence between the company name and the Domain Name.  There are some important exceptions, for example:
7.9.1.	Where the Complainant’s rights arose after the registration of the Domain Name in dispute;
7.9.2.	Where the Domain Name is generic or a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant’s business;
7.9.3.	Where there is an acronym involved (see the Nominet guidance to Complainants on Rights in a Name or Mark - “5) If you are claiming rights in an acronym (e.g. Automaton Example Ltd claiming rights in AEL.co.uk) you should provide specific evidence of why that acronym is associated with you, and not merely a generic jumble of letters”).
7.10.	“Comtec” is not strictly an acronym (Oxford English: acronym n a word, usually pronounced as such, formed by the initial letters of other words (e.g. ernie, laser, NATO)).  “Comtec” may just be a collection of letters or it may be a contraction of two or more words, and certainly the Respondent suggests that it is a contraction.  The Complainant has not provided any explanation of the derivation or the use of the style “comtec”, and “submits that he has a right to ‘comtec.co.uk’ as similar if not identical to the Complainant’s registered name, trading name and current registered domain name ‘comtec.com’”.
7.11.	I am aware that in Tele 2 UK Communications Ltd. and Andrew Dickinson (DRS01450), that the Expert accepted that the ownership of a “.com” domain similar to the disputed domain conferred sufficient rights upon the Complainant, however the substance of that case is wholly different to this one, and did not include a challenge by the Respondent that the Domain Name was generic.
7.12.	In my opinion the nub of this case arises from the use of “comtec” by both parties.  The point I must decide is whether “comtec” is either simply generic or is a contraction of words which as a result may be considered as “a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant’s business”.  Whilst the Complainant gives me no assistance in understanding why “comtec” has been used in its company name or of its derivation; the Respondent maintains “comtec” “is widely used within the Computer and Computer Services industry as a name meaning e.g. Computer Technology”.  Given the nature of the goods and services both parties are supplying, I see no reason to doubt that “comtec” could (in both cases) be viewed as a contraction of “computer technology”.
7.13.	The Complainant contends that “it is reasonably fair to say that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant ownership and use of ‘comtec.com’. The Respondent has therefore secured ‘comtec.co.uk’ thus knowing likely detriment will be caused to the Complainants business, and this is unfair advantage”.  I am by no means clear why the Respondent should necessarily have been aware of the existence of Comtec Enterprises Ltd., and indeed no evidence has been produced which would help me understand the point.  It is not a requirement on a registrant in one registry to check that there are no similar names in any other registry.  There are similar “comtec” registrations in other registries, for example comtec.ca; comtec.co.de; comtec.pl; comtec.co.il; comtec.co.kr.  It may well be that the Respondent had, at the time of his registration, no knowledge of comtec.co.uk of the existence of Comtec Enterprises Ltd. or of the domain name comtec.com.
7.14.	The Complainant in its Reply to the Response dismisses the “generic” argument thus “The Respondent at paragraph 5 of the Response has endeavoured to rely upon the generic definition of ‘comtec’ but this is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether the Parties have a right to the domain name comtec.co.uk and secondly whether an abuse has occurred. The Complainant would submit they have a right to the domain name by their name, trading status and current ownership of comtec.com.”  In my opinion, the Complainant, in order to establish Rights (insofar as this complaint to the Nominet DRS is concerned), must show that the tests set out in the DRS Policy have been met, and this includes satisfying the Expert that the Domain Name is not generic or a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business.
7.15.	In the Reply I am (the Respondent was) referred to the following decisions: “In particular the Respondent has failed to consider the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution previous Decisions set out within R&G Advertising & Marketing Limited –v- Ray Gill Advertising (DRS 00446), Watermark Group Plc –v- Watermark Recruitment Bureau (DRS 00657), and Helvetia Swiss Insurance Company Ltd –v- Helvetia Group (DRS 01210)”.  I have examined the references and I do not find them helpful.  None actually touches on the points of generic names or names which are wholly descriptive of the Complainant’s business.  In none of the cases has the Respondent made any response – so the Complainant’s assertions have had to be evaluated by the Expert unchallenged.  In this case the Respondent challenges the Complainant’s assertions and raises cogent reasons for evaluating whether the Complainant has the necessary Rights.
7.16.	There is some disagreement as to who first started to use the “comtec” identity.  On the evidence available to me, and on the balance of probabilities, I find it to have been the Respondent (see 5 above where the Yellow Pages advertising copy has a date of 1998).  This is not necessarily fatal to the Complainant’s case.
7.17.	If I consider the style “comtec” to be similar to an acronym, then I would have expected an explanation as to why the acronym (or in this case what may be a contraction) should be associated with the Complainant and not be regarded as a generic jumble of letters.  None has been provided.
7.18.	Certainly “comtec” is a made up word, and one which appears frequently in the names of traders and companies in the computer and computer services industry (see 5 above) – not just in the UK but throughout the world.  A term is a word used to express a definite concept.  In the absence of an explanation from the Complainant, “comtec” seems to me to be a term in common use in the industry and to express the concept of “computer technology”.  If “Comtec” was read as “Computer Technology” it would result in the Complainant’s company name being read as “Computer Technology Enterprises Ltd.”, making the company name wholly descriptive of the Complainant’s business.
7.19.	In my opinion, “comtec” is in commonplace use in the computer and computer services industry and has a recognisable meaning within that industry.
7.20.	Having regard to the evidence before me, and having considered the submissions and the exhibits supplied, I find that “comtec” is both generic (is applicable to a class or group) and a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business and hence that the Complainant cannot rely upon it to establish Rights.
7.21.	I therefore find that the Complainant has not established that he has Rights in the name “comtec” and that the Complaint fails on the first test.
Abusive Registration
7.22.	Having found that the Complainant has not established to my satisfaction that it has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name, there is no reason to continue to examine any allegations of an Abusive Registration.
8.	Decision:
8.1.	For the reasons set out above I find that the Complainant has not established Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name and I therefore dismiss the Complaint.
8.2.	I therefore determine that NO ACTION should be taken on the Domain Name registration.
8.3.	Despite the comments by the Respondent, I decline to find that the Complaint was brought in bad faith.

______________________                                     Date:  24th February 2005 
Iain M. Tolmie (“the Expert”)