National Arbitration Forum




Automobile Atlanta, Inc. v. Treadway Solutions

Claim Number: FA0905001264729



Complainant is Automobile Atlanta, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David N. Baker, of Sapronov & Associates, P.C., Georgia, USA.  Respondent is Treadway Solutions (“Respondent”), represented by David W. Nance, Louisiana, USA.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <>, registered with, 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.


Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 26, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 26, 2009.


On May 26, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are registered with, Inc. and that the 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 June 8, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 29, 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,,,,, and by e-mail.


Respondent's Response was received in hard copy on June 30, 2009.  However, in that the hard copy was received subsequent to the Response deadline, the Response is considered deficient under ICANN Rule 5.


Complainant submitted a timely Additional Submission on July 6, 2009.  Respondent filed a timely Additional Submission on July 14, 2009.


On July 6, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.



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



            A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUTO ATLANTA, DR914, and LIFE IN HIGH GEAR trade names.


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


3.      Respondent registered and used the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names in bad faith.


B.  Respondent makes the following assertions:


1.      Complainant does not have trademark rights in the <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names.  Respondent did not address Complainant’s contentions regarding the <> domain name.


2.      Respondent has legitimate rights and interests in the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names as part of an employment and/or ownership agreement with Complainant.


3.      Respondent registered and used the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names as part of a business agreement, now the subject of civil litigation.


C.  In its Additional Submission, Complainant confirms that there is pending civil litigation between the parties and states:


1.      Complainant has common law rights in the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names.


2.      Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names because it cannot prove a written agreement between the two parties.


3.      Respondent offered to sell the domain names for $60,000, and also took down Complainant’s websites at the domain name addresses, proving bad faith.


4.      Respondent’s Response was late.


D.  In its Additional Submission, Respondent makes conflicting statements about whether or not there is pending litigation covering all of the issues between the parties.  Respondent also:


1.      Reiterates its arguments regarding Complainant’s lack of trademark rights in the disputed domain names; and


2.      Provides evidence of its good faith effort to submit a timely and complete Response by the June 29 deadline.



Late Response


The Panel did consider the late Response submitted by Respondent, for the following reasons:


1.                  The Response was late by only one day.

2.                  The Complainant had the opportunity to, and did, submit a full response to Respondent’s contentions in its Additional Submission.

3.                  The Panel found the information contained therein to be essential to the just disposition of this case.

Business Dispute Outside the Scope of the UDRP


Both parties acknowledge that the dispute over the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names is related to a dispute over an alleged agreement between Complainant and Respondent, an employee of Complainant, regarding Respondent’s partial ownership of Complainant.  This has set up the need for evidentiary exploration which is beyond the scope of UDRP proceedings.  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.”)


The Panel notes that the full dispute between the parties is already the subject of civil litigation between the parties, where all the relevant evidence will come out.  The Panel defers to a tribunal that will have the benefit of all the evidence and, in any case, a UDRP decision cannot be implemented during the pendency of a related civil action.  See AmeriPlan Corp. v. Gilbert FA105737 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 22, 2002) (Regarding simultaneous court proceedings and UDRP disputes, Policy ¶ 4(k) requires that ICANN not implement an administrative panel’s decision regarding a UDRP dispute “until the court proceeding is resolved.”  Therefore, a panel should not rule on a decision when there is a court proceeding pending because “no purpose is served by [the panel] rendering a decision on the merits to transfer the domain name, or have it remain, when as here, a decision regarding the domain name will have no practical consequence.”)


For the foregoing reasons, the Panel declines to consider the arguments presented in this case and the Complaint is dismissed.



The Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.




Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2009




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum