Superior Gold Group, Inc. v. Team
Claim Number: FA0904001256919
PARTIES
Complainant is Superior
Gold Group, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Alfred W. Sloan, of The Sloan Firm, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <superiorgoldgroup.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 9, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 9, 2009.
On April 9, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <superiorgoldgroup.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 April 21, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 11, 2009 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@superiorgoldgroup.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 7, 2009.
No additional submission was received from either the Complainant or the Respondent.
On May 11, 2009, 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant's submissions contends that:
1. That it was incorporated in the year 2000.
2. That in 2007, Complainant and Respondent were affiliated at the time Respondent registered the domain name on behalf of Complainant.
3. That thereafter, the two parties decided to disassociate and such breakup was left and amicable.
B. Respondent
Respondent's contends:
1. That Complainant was not registered the Nevada Secretary of State under the name “Superior Gold Group” until twelve (12) days after Respondent registered the <superiorgoldgroup.com> domain name on March 31, 2007.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that both parties have presented evidence of rights in the disputed domain name and the main issue in this case centers upon who is the rightful owner of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore determines that this question and its answer falls outside the scope of traditional analysis conducted under the UDRP.
DISCUSSION
The Panel finds that this case is analogous to the factual circumstances in Love v. Barnett, FA 944826 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2007) which the panel stated:
A dispute, such as the present one, between parties who each have at least a prima facie case for rights in the disputed domain names is outside the scope of the Policy … the present case appears to hinge mostly on a business or civil dispute between the parties, with possible causes of action for breach of contract or fiduciary duty. Thus, the majority holds that the subject matter is outside the scope of the UDRP and dismisses the Complaint.
Based upon the reasoning outlined in the aforementioned case and the similar circumstances alleged in the Response, the Panel concludes that the Complainant is dependent upon determining the rightful owner of the disputed domain name based on the alleged relationship between Complainant and Respondent.
The Panel therefore finds that this question falls outside the scope of the UDRP. Accordingly, the Panel decides that the Complaint should be dismissed. See Everingham Bros. Bait Co. v. Contigo Visual, FA 440219 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 27, 2005) (“The Panel finds that this matter is outside the scope of the Policy because it involves a business dispute between two parties. The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cybersquatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes.”); see also Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 844252 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2007) (“The Complaint before us describes what appears to be a common-form claim of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. It is not the kind of controversy, grounded exclusively in abusive cyber-squatting, that the Policy was designed to address.”).
DECISION
Having concluded that this matter falls outside the scope of the UDRP, the Panel ORDERS that the Complaint be dismissed.
Robert T. Pfeuffer,
Senior District Judge, Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum