CaribSports International Ltd. v. William
Davis
Claim Number: FA0208000117697
PARTIES
Complainant
is Sports International Ltd., Belize
City, BELIZE (“Complainant”).
Respondent is William Davis,
St. John's, ANTIGUA (“Respondent”) represented by Daniel Press, of Chung &
Press, PC.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <betcarib.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 2, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 8, 2002.
On
August 7, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <betcarib.com>
is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Network
Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions,
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
August 12, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September
3, 2002 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 postmaster@betcarib.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 3, 2002.
On September 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E.
Meyerson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant,
CaribSports International, Ltd., contends that the disputed domain name may be
misinterpreted as pertaining to a domain name owned by Complainant—<betcarib.com>. Complainant contends that the domain name
may be used by Respondent to attract Complainant’s customers and that it has
been registered for the sole purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Complainant claims to have rights in the
mark “C@RIB.”
B. Respondent
Respondent,
William Davis, contends the Complaint should be dismissed summarily as
Complainant has offered no evidence to support its allegations. Further, Respondent asserts that its domain
name is not identical or confusingly similar to the mark “C@RIB.”
Respondent
claims that the term “carib” is short for “Caribbean” and it is a
geographically descriptive term and no secondary meaning has been established
by Complainant.
FINDINGS
Because the Complaint contains no
evidence to support its bare, conclusory allegations, it must be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
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.
I
find it unnecessary to consider these elements, as Complainant has come forward
with no evidence whatsoever to support its allegations. The failure to provide any documentary
evidence in support of one’s case justifies the dismissal of a complaint. E.g., Online
Resources v. On-Line Resources, No. D2001-0257 (WIPO May 15, 2001); Singh
v. McCarthy, No. AF-0839 (eRes July 3, 2001);
DECISION
The Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: September 23, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page