Church of Compassionate Service Intellectual Property Trust Kevin Hartshorn and Slavi Kozhuharov Trustees v. Vibrant Life
Claim Number: FA0907001275289
Complainant is Church of Compassionate Service Intellectual Property
Trust Kevin Hartshorn and Slavi Kozhuharov Trustees (“Complainant”), represented by John
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <churchofcompassionateservice.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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 electronically on July 22, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 27, 2009.
On July 24, 2009, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <churchofcompassionateservice.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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").
30, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August
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 email@example.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
domain name is identical to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <churchofcompassionateservice.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <churchofcompassionateservice.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant registered the
Respondent registered the <churchofcompassionateservice.com> domain name on April 10, 2004. There is no affirmative evidence in the record of the use of the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel 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."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the
Complainant contends that the <churchofcompassionateservice.com> domain name is
identical to its
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Because of the
reasons the Panel gives in its discussion of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the
Panel declines to analyze Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the complainant must prove all
three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the
elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign
Complainant makes no claim to common law rights in the
CHURCH OF COMPASSIONATE SERVICE mark, and Complainant’s rights in the CHURCH OF
COMPASSIONATE SERVICE mark through its registration with the USPTO, which date
back to the filing date of September 6, 2006, do not predate Respondent’s
registration of the <churchofcompassionateservice.com>
domain name on April 10, 2004.
Therefore, the Panel finds that because none of Complainant’s rights in
In addition, Complainant claims that Respondent has
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to promote the
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has not been satisfied.
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <churchofcompassionateservice.com> domain name remain with Respondent.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 8, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum