National Arbitration Forum




EWM Brand Holdings LLC v. CC Entertainment c/o Chris Christian

Claim Number: FA0806001212740



Complainant is EWM Brand Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Nhut Tan Tran, of Hermes Sargent Bates LLP, Texas, USA.  Respondent is CC Entertainment c/o Chris Christian (“Respondent”), represented by Baxter W. Banowsky, Texas, USA.



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


Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 25, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 26, 2008.


On June 26, 2008, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 July 3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 23, 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 and determined to be complete on July 23, 2008.


Complainant provided the Panel with an Additional Submission to be considered with all other materials previously received in accordance to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.  This submission was received on July 28, 2008 and was timely.  On July 29, 2008 Respondent provided an Additional Submission pursuant to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7 and it was, likewise, filed in a timely manner.  Both of these Additional Submissions have been fully considered by the panel.


On July 31, 2008 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that it received rights to the common law mark THE STUDIOS AT LAS COLINAS in a deed in lieu of foreclosure in 2003, and that it has used the mark since then.


B. Respondent

Respondent on the contrary, argues that it was the entity that owned and developed the mark prior to 2003 and that it was the party that transferred the deed to Complainant.  Respondent claims that the deed specifically targeted the real property of the entertainment studios itself, and as such did not transfer assets such as trademarks or goodwill surrounding the mark or business.


C. Additional Submissions

Because of the disposition set out hereafter, the Panel has determined to forego the analysis of the Additional Submissions.



The Panel finds that this is a contractual issue that falls outside the scope of review under the UDRP and that such an issue must be resolved in a Court of competent jurisdiction.  The Panel therefore chooses to dismiss the Complaint.  See Discover New England v. Avanti Group, Inc., FA 123886 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2002) (finding the dispute outside the scope of the UDRP because the dispute centered on the interpretation of contractual language and whether or not a breach occurred); see also 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 Policy relegates all ‘legitimate disputes’ to the courts”).



Having determined that it would be appropriate for these contractual disputes to be decided in a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Panel declines to analyze the merits of the case at hand under UDRP.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that this complaint be dismissed without prejudice.




Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, Panelist

Dated:  August 12, 2008




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration ForUM