National Arbitration Forum




Colin M. Cantrell v. Shaun Duncan c/o N/A

Claim Number: FA0801001139690



Complainant is Colin M. Cantrell (“Complainant”), represented by Pete Stoppani, of Pete Stoppani Consulting, Washington, USA.  Respondent is Shaun Duncan c/o N/A (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Tucows, Inc.



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


Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 22, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 23, 2008.


On January 23, 2008, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, Inc. 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 January 31, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 20, 2008 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 by e-mail.


A timely electronic Response was received on February 20, 2008.  However, the Response was received late in hard copy, and is thus deficient pursuant to ICANN Rule 5.


On February 29, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.



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



            A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CANTRELL MOTOR SPORTS marks.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name.


3.      Respondent registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith.



B.  Respondent sent in a late Response in letter form via email, which was accorded little weight, as there was not much detail.  Respondent states that he intended to transfer the domain name <> to Kelly Cantrell.



Complainant stated that it uses the trade name “Cantrell Motorsports” for its business name, but does not state when Complainant started using the name or how it is used in commerce.  Complainant also states that it has filed for a trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but did not provide a copy of it, or otherwise give the relevant dates.  The Respondent filed the <> domain name in July, 2005.



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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 makes a brief reference to quitting the employ of Respondent to start his own business in June of 2005.  Respondent filed the <> domain name in July, 2005.  Complainant failed to submit any evidence with its Complaint; therefore, the exact dates are unknown to the Panel.  The Panel infers that Complainant could not possibly have established rights in the CANTRELL MOTORSPORTS trade name by the time Respondent registered the <> domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish trademark rights in the CANTRELL MOTORSPORTS mark.




Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.




Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 14, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum