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.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <globalccf.org>, 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received on
Both Complainant and Respondent submitted separately an additional
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Respondent’s <globalccf.org> 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 <globalccf.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <globalccf.org> domain name in bad faith.
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
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
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
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum