National Arbitration Forum




CDMA Certification Forum c/o Barsa Associates v. R4L Privacy Advocate c/o Pluto Technologies Inc

Claim Number: FA0805001195579



Complainant is CDMA Certification Forum c/o Barsa Associates (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas Erickson, of Qualcomm, Inc., Colorado, USA.  Respondent is R4L Privacy Advocate c/o Pluto Technologies Inc (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.




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


James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 28, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 28, 2008.


On May 29, 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 June 6, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 26, 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 Response was received on June 25, 2008.  The Response was deficient under ICANN Rule 5 as it was not received in hard copy.


Both Complainant and Respondent submitted separately an additional submission on July 2, 2008 that is determined to be timely under the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.


On July 3, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

1.      Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CDMA CERTIFICATION FORUM mark (the “Mark”).


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

            The Respondent defends on the grounds that the right to use CDMA CERTIFICATION FORUM is the subject of a business dispute between NEWS IQ, Inc. and Qualcomm (ESG), parties not involved in this proceeding, but who defined the right to use the Mark between themselves.  The current parties are successors in interest.


C. Additional Submissions

            Each of the parties submitted an Additional Submission which confirmed that there is a business dispute between the parties as to the ownership rights in the Mark and the right to register the domain name at issue.



Complainant and Respondent agree that the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent’s predecessor-in-interest.  Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered for the benefit of Complainant by this predecessor, as a part of a contractual arrangement over certain services Respondent was to provide Complainant’s representative. 


            In contrast, Respondent contends that its predecessor registered the disputed domain name on its own initiative, before any contractual relationship developed between any of the parties.  Respondent highlights the fact that Complainant was not yet an independent or self-sufficient legal entity at the time of the alleged contractual relationship.  Additionally, any related contracts entered into for services to be provided to Complainant are evidenced only at the earliest to have begun on June 7, 2004.  However, the disputed domain name was registered before this on May 11, 2004.


            All of these above arguments are repeated and highlighted in both Complainant’s Additional Submission and Respondent’s Additional Submission. 


            It is clear that the parties disagree as to the original nature of the relationship between them and the services and/or payment owed under a contract entered into between Respondent’s predecessor-in-interest and Complainant’s representative.  Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for this Panel to dismiss the Complaint as being outside of the scope of UDRP proceedings. 


            The differing accounts of the relationship between Complainant and Respondent and their predessors indicate that the instant dispute is a contractual matter that is outside the parameters of the UDRP.  For this reason, the Panel declines to reach a decision under the Policy and dismisses the Complaint.  See Commercial Publ’g Co. v. EarthComm., Inc., FA 95013 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 20, 2000) (finding that the Policy’s administrative procedure is “intended only for the relatively narrow class of cases of ‘abusive registrations’ . . . The [P]olicy relegates all ‘legitimate disputes’ to the courts”); see also Weber-Stephen Prod. Co. v. Armitage Hardware, D2000-0187 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (“Like any other tribunal, however, this Panel can determine whether it has jurisdiction only from the facts and arguments presented to it. In this case, Complainant did allege bad-faith use and registration of the domain name at issue.  Had Complainant proved those allegations, there would be no proper question as to this Panel’s jurisdiction.”); see also Frazier Winery LLC v. Hernandez, FA 841081 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2006) (holding that disputes arising out of a business relationship between the complainant and respondent regarding control over the domain name registration are outside the scope of the UDRP Policy).



The Panel finds that this dispute is not within the jurisdiction of ICANN Policy.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Complaint be and hereby is DISMISSED.




James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:  July 13, 2008




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum