Taeho Kim v. Skelton Logic
Claim Number: FA1002001305934
PARTIES
Complainant is Taeho Kim (“Complainant”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <recent.net>, <they.net> and <than.net> registered with
GoDaddy.com,
Inc.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on February 2, 2010. With its Complaint, Complainant also chose to
proceed entirely electronically under the new Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) and the new Forum’s Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Disputed Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”) by
submitting an “opt-in” form available on the Forum’s website.
On February 3, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <recent.net>, <they.net> and <than.net> domain names are
registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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”).
Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint to the National Arbitration
Forum electronically on or about February 26,
2010.
On March 1, 2010, the Forum
served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the
Complaint, setting a deadline of March 22, 2010 by which Respondent could file
a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@recent.net, postmaster@they.net, and postmaster@than.net. Also on March 1, 2010, the Written Notice of
the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the
deadline for a Response, 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
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 4, 2010.
Respondent chose to opt-in to the electronic process with its submission
and submitted its Response in electronic copy only.
On March 12, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant says he purchased the domain names <recent.net>, <they.net> and <than.net> from escrow.com on June 30, 2009. His GoDaddy.com account was hacked into on December 18, 2009 and the domain names were sold to a third party and re-sold to Respondent. Thus, Complainant alleges that Respondent purchased stolen domain names. Other domain names stolen at the same time were returned to Complainant by the Registrar but because the WHOIS information in relation to the three disputed domain names had been changed, the Registrar has been unable to assist Complainant in recovering them.
The Complaint is based on Complainant’s ownership of the domain names and his stated intention
to use the marks RECENT.NET,
THEY.NET and THAN.NET in the future, even though he does not have a trademark
or service mark corresponding to any of the domain names. Complainant says
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names,
which Complainant says were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent denies Complainant’s allegations and says it is entitled to the disputed domain names because on December 20, 2009, Respondent purchased them, together with others, for $US1,000, via the popular website and domain marketplace flippa.com, which verified the seller by telephone. Respondent contacted the email addresses listed in the WHOIS to verify that Respondent was dealing with the owner and also used an escrow service to effect the transaction. On January 8, 2010 the transfer was complete, the domain names were in Respondent’s GoDaddy account and the WHOIS was updated with Respondent’s correct details.
Respondent says it had no reason to suspect that the domain names may have been stolen. It says Complainant has not demonstrated any trademark rights related to the domain names. Therefore, in trademark terms, Complainant has no more right to the domain names than anyone else. The Forum is not the appropriate venue for dealing with cases of theft.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish the
elements entitling him to relief.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
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.
The Policy is not designed to address cases of theft of domain names,
whether brought against the alleged thief or against a subsequent purchaser.
Complainant
has no trademark rights
Complainant concedes that he has no trademark
or service mark rights and relies solely on his prior registration of the
domain names and his stated intent to use marks corresponding to the domain
names in the future. Given the generic nature of the second level domains,
“recent,” “they” and “that,” the mere acquisition by Complainant of the
disputed domain names cannot possibly give rise to trademark rights in
RECENT.NET, THEY.NET or THAT.NET. Nor can intent to use give rise to trademark
rights.
It follows that this Complaint must fail
because Complainant has no trademark rights. It is unnecessary to consider the
other elements.
DECISION
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN
Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Alan L Limbury, Panelist
Dated: March 22, 2010
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum