National Arbitration Forum




Michael C. Karr d/b/a West Los Angeles Chiropractic v. FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC

Claim Number: FA0906001269248



Complainant is Michael C. Karr d/b/a West Los Angeles Chiropractic (“Complainant”), represented by Gary J. Nelson, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC (“Respondent”), California, 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.


Hon. Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.), as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 18, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 19, 2009.


On June 19, 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 30, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 20, 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,,, by e-mail.


Respondent's Response was received in electronic copy only on July 2, 2009.  However, in that no hard copy was received by the Response deadline, the Response is considered deficient under ICANN Rule 5.


On July 28, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.) as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

1.         Dr. Michael C. Karr, D.C. (Complainant) has owned and operated his chiropractic practice since 1993.  With degrees from UCLA and Southern California College of Chiropractic, Dr. Karr’s graduate studies focused on Kinesiology, Biomechanics, and Conditioning for Maximum Performance.  Dr. Karr has worked with prestigious track and football teams, NBA coaches, players, and agents.  Since 1999, Dr. Karr has done business under the trade names and marks WEST LOS ANGELES CHIROPRACTIC, WEST LA CHIROPRACTIC and WEST LA CHIROPRACTOR (collectively the “West LA Chiropractic Marks”).

2.         Complainant owns United States federal trademark registrations for his WEST LOS ANGELES CHIROPRACTIC (No. 3,582,222 registered March 9, 2009) and WEST LA CHIROPRACTIC (No. 3,582,221 registered March 9, 2009) marks, both  reciting May 1, 1999 as the date of first use in commerce.  Complainant also owns a California state trademark registration for the mark WEST LA CHIROPRACTOR.

3.         The domain names at issue, <>, <>, <>, and <> (the “Domain Names”) are all identical or confusingly similar to at least one of the West LA Chiropractic Marks, incorporating the entire mark and merely adding hyphens and the gTLD .com.  The Domain Names misappropriate sufficient textual components from Complainant’s West LA Chiropractic Marks that ordinary Internet users familiar with Complainant’s services are likely to think that, owing to the visual and phonetic similarities between the domain names and Complainant’s marks, an affiliation exists between the domain names and Complainant.

4.         Respondent, another chiropractor in the Los Angeles area, is using the Domain Names <>, <>, and <> to provide parking pages featuring pay-per-click advertisements for Complainant’s competitors.  The Domain Name <> also contains links to commercial businesses in the same field as Complainant.  In doing so it is intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website or location, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

5.         Another circumstance that shows registration and use in bad faith under the Policy is detailed in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) which states: “you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.”  Respondent’s registration and commercial use of the Domain Names, which are confusingly similar to the mark of Complainant, a competitor, satisfies the requirements of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

6.         Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names.  The Respondent is not known by West Los Angeles Chiropractic or any of the other West LA Chiropractic Marks.  Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use his marks, nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle it to use Complainant’s marks.  Respondent has no legitimate reason for using these Domain Names that incorporate Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety.  Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish rights to and legitimate interest in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

7.         Respondent is not using the Domain Names “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.”  Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  As discussed above, Respondent uses the Domain Names to compete with Complainant by featuring links to competitors of Complainant thereby misdirecting consumers attempting to access Complainant’s website.  Use of another’s trademark within a domain name to provide a website offering goods or services in direct competition with the trademark owner cannot support a legitimate interest.

8.         Neither is Respondent making a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name[s], without intent for commercial gain,” within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  Respondent uses the domain names to provide websites featuring pay-per-click advertisements or indirectly advertising for Respondent’s own competing services.  This use establishes Respondent’s “intent for commercial gain” and undermines any claim that the use was “noncommercial.”  Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish rights to and legitimate interest in the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

B. Respondent


1.         The Respondent, Family Chiropractic, with technical and administrative contacts being Lynn Kerew (, purchased the Domain Names in March 2009 and no activity was conducted with them.  Neither Family Chiropractic nor Dr. Kerew appears if an Internet user enters the websites under any of the Domain Names.


2.         If the Complainant wants the Domain Names and has trademark rights to them, Family Chiropractic was unaware of that and is planning to release them as soon as GoDaddy will allow it to, based upon guidelines for the pending UDRP proceeding.




Preliminary Issue:  Deficient Response


Respondent’s Response was received in electronic copy only on July 2, 2009.  Thus, the National Arbitration Forum does not consider the Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.  The Panel, at its discretion, may choose whether to accept and consider this Response.  See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s failure to submit a hard copy of the response and its failure to include any evidence to support a finding in its favor placed the respondent in a de facto default posture, permitting the panel to draw all appropriate inferences stated in the complaint); see also J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where respondent submitted a timely response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”).  The Panel in this case elects to allow and consider the Respondent’s submission.


Merits of the Case


Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel in contested cases to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


(1)   the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)   the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


In this case, however, the Respondent says she purchased the Domain Names in March 2009 without awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights in them, has made no use of them whatever, and plans to release them as soon as the pending UDRP proceedings will permit.  Although the Panel has seen more clear and unequivocal statements evidencing consent to transfer, Respondent’s statements are nevertheless sufficiently clear to support a finding that she consents and agrees that the Domain Names be transferred to Complainant.  The tenor of her Response, taken as a whole, is that she does not want the Domain Names and seeks to wash her hands of this matter as quickly and with as little bother as possible.  


Where a respondent does not contest the transfer of a domain name but instead agrees to its transfer to a complainant, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain name without analysis of the Policy standards set forth above or further discussion.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).  Accordingly, to effectuate the common desire of the parties, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Panel dispenses with findings and discussion, and ORDERS that the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.





Honorable Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.)

Dated:  August 7, 2009




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page