national arbitration forum




Richard Robbins International c/o Richard Robbins v. Agra Designs c/o Richard Blanco

Claim Number: FA0805001189068




Complainant is Richard Robbins International c/o Richard Robbins (“Complainant”), represented by Dana Walker, Ontario, Canada.  Respondent is Agra Designs c/o Richard Blanco (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.




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




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 May 6, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 12, 2008.


On May 7, 2008,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 May 20, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 9, 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.


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


On June 16, 2008, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.




A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Although Complainant never directly specifies a mark in which they have rights, the Panel believes that Complainant intends to assert that Complainant has rights in the RICHARD ROBBINS mark, and that Respondent’s <> domain name is identical to Complainant’s RICHARD ROBBINS mark.


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


3.      Respondent possibly registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith, although Complainant is unsure.


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




Complainant is a motivational speaking and sales training company.  Respondent registered the <> domain name on July 1, 1998.  No evidence is given regarding the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.




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."


In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  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); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).


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/Rights or Legitimate Interests


Because the Panel finds that Complainant failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the Panel declines to address Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii).


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Complainant has not provided any evidence or even asserted that Respondent has registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  Furthermore, Complainant has not provided any evidence of Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name.  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not register the <> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Caterpillar Inc. v. Off Rd. Equip. Parts, FA 95497 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 10, 2000) (refusing to find bad faith registration where the complainant failed to submit any evidence that the domain name was registered in bad faith); see also Goldmasters Precious Metals v. Gold Masters srl, FA 95246 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no bad faith use, even though the respondent’s ownership and purported use of the domain name frustrated the complainant’s business efforts, because nothing indicated that the respondent intended to prevent the complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, to disrupt the complainant’s business, or to intentionally attract the complainant’s customers to the respondent’s site by creating a likelihood of confusion).




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


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name REMAIN with Respondent.




Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated:  June 30, 2008



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum