national arbitration forum




Good Samaritan Project v. Kathy Stanley

Claim Number: FA0708001053388




Complainant is Good Samaritan Project (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Woodcock, of Good Samaritan Project, 3030 Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64108.  Respondent is Kathy Stanley (“Respondent”), 7250 State Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66112.




The domain names at issue are <> and <>, registered with Network Solutions LLC.




The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.




Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 2, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 7, 2007.


On August 3, 2007, Network Solutions LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> and <> domain names are registered with Network Solutions LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Network Solutions LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").


On August 15, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 4, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to and by e-mail.


Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On September 12, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.




Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.




            A.  Complainant fails to make any assertions relating to the UDRP Policy.


B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.




Complainant, Good Samaritan Project, alleges that it entered into a relationship with Respondent to provide web-hosting services.  Complainant further alleges that it has been unable to contact Respondent concerning the status of the disputed domain names and therefore brings this action because it has not been able to locate Respondent.


Respondent registered the <> domain name on June 1, 2005 and the <> domain name on November 24, 1999.




Although the Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory, see Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true), Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."  Thus, the Panel interprets Rule 15(a) to require that a complaint must at least make a prima facie showing that the respondent’s actions violate the Policy.  As explained herein, the Complainant has not done so.


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


(1)   the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)   Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)   the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


Complainant does not attempt to establish rights in any trademark in association with this dispute.  The UDRP Policy mandates that Complainant demonstrate rights in a mark in order to achieve standing to bring a complaint.  As such, Complainant does not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Brinks Servs. Inc. v. Holt, FA 324699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant did not have standing to bring a complaint under the Policy because the complainant did not provide any evidence that it had valid trademark registrations for the mark or common law rights in the mark, and the complainant did not even suggest how long it had used the mark or identified what services were connected with the mark). 


Rights or Legitimate Interests / Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Complainant has failed to allege the use Respondent makes of the domain names and has failed to set forth evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests and any bad faith registration and use.  The Panel finds that without any proof of Respondent’s uses (or lack of use), the Panel must deny Complainant’s claim.  See Claessens Prod. Consultants BV v. Claessens Int’l Ltd., FA 238656 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2004) (finding that Complainant failed to meet its burden pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) where Complainant neglected to state how Respondent used the disputed domain name in the Complaint).




Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED without prejudice to resubmitting a complaint in conformance with the Policy






Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated: September 21, 2007



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum