Allcaneat Foods, Ltd. v.
Karma Ventures LLC and Dave's Domain's
Claim Number: FA1007001335801
PARTIES
Complainant is Allcaneat Foods, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Deborah
Peckham, of Burns & Levinson LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <allcaneat.net>, <allcaneat.org>, <allcaneat.info>, <allcaneat.biz>, <allcaneatfoods.com>, <allcaneatfoods.net>, <allcaneatfoods.org>, <allcaneatfoods.info>, <allcaneatfoods.biz>, <allcaneatfood.com>, <allcaneatfood.net>, <allcaneatfood.org>, <allcaneatfood.biz>, <allcaneatfood.info>, and <allcaneat.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.
Jonas Gulliksson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on July 16, 2010.
On July 19, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <allcaneat.net>, <allcaneat.org>, <allcaneat.info>, <allcaneat.biz>, <allcaneatfoods.com>, <allcaneatfoods.net>, <allcaneatfoods.org>, <allcaneatfoods.info>, <allcaneatfoods.biz>, <allcaneatfood.com>, <allcaneatfood.net>, <allcaneatfood.org>, <allcaneatfood.biz>, <allcaneatfood.info>, and <allcaneat.com> 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”).
On July 20, 2010, the Forum
served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of Complaint,
setting a deadline of August 9, 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@allcaneat.net,
postmaster@allcaneat.org, postmaster@allcaneat.info, postmaster@allcaneat.biz, postmaster@allcaneatfoods.com,
postmaster@allcaneatfoods.net, postmaster@allcaneatfoods.org, postmaster@allcaneatfoods.info,
postmaster@allcaneatfoods.biz, postmaster@allcaneatfood.com, postmaster@allcaneatfood.net,
postmaster@allcaneatfood.org, postmaster@allcaneatfood.biz, postmaster@allcaneatfood.info,
and postmaster@allcaneat.com. Also on
July 20, 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 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 August 9, 2010.
Complainant submitted an Additional Submission
that was received and determined to be compliant with Forum Supplemental Rule 7
on August 16, 2010.
On August 24, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Jonas Gulliksson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
In or about April 2009, George Moufarrej, founder of the Complainant’s business, approached the Respondents Obey and Ford about assisting with opening a new business venture creating and selling specialty foods intended for consumers looking for wheat free and/or gluten free alternatives. Obey agreed to act as CFO of the company, and Ford agreed to act as Sales and Marketing director of the company.
On or about June 1, 2009, Moufarrej, Obey, Ford, Sterrett and other individuals involved in the new business met and decided that the new name of the business would be “Allcaneat Foods.”
On or about June 6, 2009, Ford, acting in his role as Sales and Marketing Director for the company, on behalf of founder Moufarrej and in furtherance of the activities of Complainant’s business, undertook to register the domain names <allcaneat.com> and <allcaneatfoods.com>. The domain names were registered in the name of Moufarrej and in Complainant’s chosen business name, “Allcaneat Foods Ltd.” Subsequently, on July 7, 2009, on behalf of the Complainant, a trademark application was filed for ALLCANEAT FOODS LTD.
During the period August 17-19, 2009, either Ford, Obey and/or agents acting on its or their direction, acting in furtherance of the business of Complainant, registered, the other domain names in dispute. The registration record has been updated or changed on several times after the registration to show the Respondents or the name of a third party who was previously engaged as the web designer of the Complainant.
Between June 2009, and March 17, 2010, all of the original participants in Complainant’s business, including David Ford and Douglas Obey, continued to cooperate in the activities of the fledgling business. Because of a disagreement over management of the Complainant’s business, Obey was then terminated from his position with the Complainant’s business and Ford subsequently withdrew from the Complainant.
Around April 26, 2010, the Complainant discovered that it no longer had control over the disputed domain names. The Complainant requested the Respondents to return control of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. This was refused, however, a third party, Jason Stadtlander, demanded $200 per domain for their return to Complainant.
On April 29, 2010, the Complainant again demanded the transfer of the domain names in dispute. The Respondents’ counsel responded on May 4, 2010 refusing said transfer and indicated that David Ford had some sort of “ownership interest” in the “ALLCANEAT name” because he allegedly first conceived it. On that same day the registration records for several of the disputed domain names apparently were once again updated or changed, without authorization of Complainant. Specifically, the record for <allcaneat.com> was changed to indicate, falsely, that Ford and “Dave’s Domains” owned said domain name. In addition, the registration records for many of the other Disputed Domain Names were changed to indicate, falsely, that they belonged to Doug Obey and/or “Karma Ventures LLC.” Another domain name in dispute, <allcaneat.net> was registered by one of the Respondents around April 29, 2010.
Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Allcaneat Marks inasmuch as all of them are comprised of or include some or all of the words ALLCANEAT or ALLCANEAT FOODS (or the singularized ALLCANEAT FOOD), which are identical to one or more of the Allcaneat Marks.
The Complainant began using its
ALLCANEAT FOODS mark in
Furthermore, the Complainant already has suffered actual confusion
because of the Respondents’ refusal to release the Disputed Domain Names. On or about April 28 - 29, 2010, the Respondents
seized absolute control of the disputed domain names, and in particular, <allcaneat.com>
and <allcaneatfoods.com>. Until that
time, those two domain names had displayed information about the Complainant
and the upcoming grand opening of its first retail outlet. Because the Respondents refused to transfer
what had been the Complainant’s active domains, the Complainant was unable to
update the content at these domains to indicate to its growing consumer base
that its retail store actually had opened.
The Complainant was able to scramble and create content at a related
domain (<allcaneatbakery.com>), but not until several days had passed and
customers asked questions about the conflicting content displayed at these two
Disputed Domain Names.
No Legitimate Interest
The Respondents have no legitimate earlier claim to any of the disputed
domain names or any corresponding name. The
Complainant conceived of its business in about April 2009 and selected the
ALLCANEAT FOODS name, with the Respondents’ actual knowledge, around June 1,
2009. Complainant filed its
The Respondents have not been commonly known by the ALLCANEAT
Marks. Indeed, the Respondents’ only
involvement with the ALLCANEAT designation occurred when Obey and Ford were
previously legitimately associated as CFO and Sales and Marketing Director of the
Complainant’s business. The Respondents
have made no bona fide offering of goods or services using the disputed domain
names and they never had authorization from Complainant to use, own or control
the Disputed Domain Names for Respondents’ own use or enjoyment. Rather, the
Disputed Domain Names are all either pay-per-click sites, or pointed at
Complainant’s websites.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
any of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondents acquired or had the registration
records for the disputed domain names updated to show Respondents as owners
only after a dispute between them and Complainant occurred and the Respondents’
apparent sole motivation for acquiring, retaining control and using the disputed
domain names seems to have been to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business,
or to broker a business deal with Complainant.
Bad Faith
The Respondents’ agent demanded payment for the Disputed Domain Names
–even though there was no evidence that Stadtlander had paid anywhere near that
amount to register them. It is well settled that the offer to sell the domain
name to the legitimate rights holder is evidence of bad faith under the
Policy.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Respondent registered at least
one of the disputed domain names (allcaneat.net) on April 29, 2010, probably in
response to demands made by Complainant, and with knowledge of Complainant’s
earlier trademark rights and without regard for Complainant’s trademark
rights. Furthermore, Respondents are
holding all of the disputed domain names despite knowledge of these
rights.
The Respondents’ unauthorized changing of the registration details of
the disputed domain names, particularly in light of Respondents’ knowledge of
Complainant’s trademark rights and business plans to use ALLCANEAT, is strong
evidence of its bad faith. In
particular, it is well settled that gaining access over an employer or agent’s
domain names and retaining control despite termination from the business are
acts of bad faith.
Finally, the domain names in dispute all either point to pay-per-click
(“PPC”) sites, or are pointed at the Complainant’s legitimate website. Such use
does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and is evidence
of bad faith use of the domain names.
B. Respondent
The Complainant omits critical facts about the underlying business dispute that gave rise to the Complaint.
Prior to starting the new AllCanEat
business with Mr. Obey and Mr. Ford, Mr. Moufarrej had previously operated a
small bakery called “Fresh Start.” Mr.
Moufarrej initially considered naming the new business “Fresh Start 2.” However, Mr. Ford had a better idea. Given his family’s interest in gluten-free
meals tasty enough for everyone to enjoy, as well as his marketing background,
Mr. Ford recognized the branding value in “AllCanEat” as soon as he conceived
of the name. The AllCanEat Foods, Ltd. business was formed on July 30, 2009, as
a
As director of sales and marketing, Mr. Ford understood the importance of securing the AllCanEat domain name. Because Mr. Moufarrej was more actively involved with preparations to form the new business on a daily basis in June 2009, Mr. Ford thought it would be convenient to register the <allcaneat.com> and <allcaneatfoods.com> domain names in the name of Mr. Moufarrej. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Obey arranged for Jason Stadtlander, an acquaintance with valuable technical support experience, to design and maintain the company’s computer system and website. Recognizing the importance of securing similar variants of the domain name, Mr. Obey had Mr. Stadtlander purchase twelve additional domain names in August 2009 using funds from Mr. Obey’s business, Karma Ventures.
Because it was convenient for Mr. Stadtlander, in his technical support role, to have control over the fourteen domain names then in existence, in about October 2009 Mr. Ford updated the domain name contact information for the two domain names registered in June with Mr. Stadtlander’s information. Once the Respondents were removed from the Board and from their roles as directors of Complainant in late March 2010, they had no need for Mr. Stadtlander to continue maintaining their websites. Thus, in about April 2010, the Respondents had Mr. Stadtlander update the contact information for the fourteen domain names to reflect Respondents’ ownership.
In or about January 2010, the weekly meetings of the five Board members grew increasingly contentious. The dispute centered on whether the company would be directed by the Board in the interests of the investors, or directed by the majority shareholder, Mr. Moufarrej. Mr. Obey and Mr. Ford, along with many of the investors, had entered into the venture with the belief that it would be Board-directed.
When drafting the corporation’s bylaws, Mr. Summers included a clause that effectively gave his friend and majority shareholder, Mr. Moufarrej, the power to unilaterally rewrite the bylaws, leaving investors and minority shareholders vulnerable. When the Board adopted these bylaws, Mr. Summers did not inform Mr. Obey or Mr. Ford that he had included this clause in an obscure portion of the bylaws. Adding to this rift was the fact that the company was running dangerously low on funding by about March 2010. Faced with imminent insolvency, Mr. Obey did what he could as CFO to salvage the company. He temporarily ordered a reduction of all non-essential expenditures until additional funding could be secured. In response, Mr. Summers, Mr. Moufarrej and Ms. Sterrett decided to form a new Board which did not include Mr. Obey and Mr. Ford, and removed the two from their roles as officers of AllCanEat near the end of March 2010.
In the days leading up to the grand opening of Complainant’s bakery on May 1, 2010, it was frustrating to the Respondents to observe the other Board members’ incompetent use of the Respondents’ website. For example, just two days before the grand opening of Complainant’s bakery, the <allcaneat.com> website continued to show a boarded-up store. Mr. Ford thus shut down the website to avoid confusing would-be customers as to whether the store would be open on May 1, 2010. However, several days later, Mr. Ford permitted Complainant’s to use <allcaneat.com>, and it now redirects to an updated website showcasing Complainant’s bakery.
Given the fundamental dispute over the corporate structure and control of Complainant, the lack of trust between Respondents and the de facto Board, and Complainant’s current financial instability, Respondents do not trust Complainant to hold and maintain the disputed domain names. Nevertheless, Respondents hope that Complainant will be a successful business, given their role as minority shareholders and their tremendous personal investment in the business. Thus, Respondents have no plans to sell their fifteen domain names to any third party. Rather, they intend to hold them, permitting Complainant to use them in the meantime, in the hope that the domain names will be used for promoting the bakery once the underlying corporate dispute is resolved.
Business Dispute Outside the Scope of the UDRP
As described above, this matter is primarily a business dispute between Messrs. Obey and Ford and the three Board members who retain de facto control over Complainant.
The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cyber squatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes. Here, the domain name dispute is part of an underlying business dispute which falls outside the scope of the UDRP.
However, even if the Panel finds that this dispute is properly within the scope of the UDRP Policy, the Complainant fails to establish the three required elements for the reasons discussed below.
No Established Rights in the Mark
Firstly, the Complainant cannot
rely on Ms. Sterrett’s intent-to-use application and any resulting trademark
registration to demonstrate rights in the ALLCANEAT FOODS mark because both are
void. Under
Secondly, Ms. Sterrett’s intent-to-use application and any resulting trademark registration are also void because Ms. Sterrett was not the owner of the ALLCANEAT FOODS mark.
Thirdly, the Complainant cannot establish sufficient rights in the
ALLCANEAT FOODS mark because the domain name registrations predate any
trademark rights. In its trademark application, Complainant acknowledges it did
not use the mark in commerce until May 2, 2010, and did not use the mark
anywhere until April 30, 2010. About three months after first using the mark,
Complainant initiated this action but has not provided evidence of a validly
registered trademark or secondary meaning.
Legitimate Interest
The Complainant alleges in that Mr. Ford acted as an agent of the
Complainant when he registered the some of the domain names in dispute.
However, by Complainant’s own admission, it did not come into existence until
July 30, 2009, nearly two months after the June 6 registration, when it was
formed as a Delaware Corporation. In
Bad Faith
The Complainant’s only allegation regarding bad faith registration is when it alleges that one domain name, <allcaneat.net>, was registered “on April 29, 2010, probably in response to demands made by Complainant”. The Complainant is unable to allege bad faith registration for the remaining 14 domain names because these occurred in June and August 2009, long before relations had soured, and thus before there could exist any bad faith intent. Indeed, as noted earlier, these fourteen registrations occurred before Complainant either used or registered the ALLCANEAT FOODS mark. As to the lone domain name registered in 2010, Complainant fails to provide any evidence that <allcaneat.net> was registered in bad faith, and instead simply speculates that this was probable. To support this theory, Complainant is forced to misstate the registration date as April 29, 2010, the day that the demand letter was sent. This contradicts Complainant’s own evidence, which demonstrates the domain name was registered on April 28, a day before the demand letter was sent.
In addition to failing to prove bad faith registration, Complainant has
also failed to establish bad faith use for the same reason that this dispute
falls outside the scope of the UDRP.
Unlike the typical cyber squatting case, which the UDRP was designed to
remedy, this case involves former business partners embroiled in a complex
dispute over the structure and control of the corporation.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant
This is a case of abusive domain name registration over which the Panel
should exercise jurisdiction.
The Complainant has established rights in the ALLCANEAT Marks. The
assignment of the trademark application from Diane Sterrett to the company was
perfectly valid under
All of the Disputed Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith.
The fact that Ford or Obey may have had authorization at the time of the
initial registration(s) of some of the domains to register them does not change
the fact that the authorization was limited to registering them on behalf of
and in the name of Allcaneat Foods (or, for those done before the corporate
founding – to George Moufarrej).
Before the entity was incorporated Ford, Obey, Sterrett and Summers acted as agents of Moufarrej and the to-be-formed
corporation. Contrary to many of the factual allegations set out by the Respondents,
none of the original participants were “founders,” nor were they
"employees," "investors," "business partners," or
"co-venturers" as those terms are defined legally. Rather, they were
all agents of George Moufarrej, whose prowess as a master baker provided the
impetus for building the new Allcaneat Foods business.
Moreover, contrary to Respondents’ allegations, Ford and Obey were not
“board members.” Nor were they or are they “minority shareholders” to
Complainant. They were, at most, agents of Moufarrej and later, agents of the
fledgling start up corporation.
Whatever disagreements there may be between the Complainant and Ford
and Obey, those disagreements never involved the named Respondents Karma
Ventures and Dave’s Domains. Those entities have never been involved with
Complainant except with respect to their illicit and unauthorized ownership and
control of the disputed domain names.
Respondent
Complainant alleges the existence of several important agency
relationships. These relationships are addressed at the outset because the
issues of UDRP jurisdiction, Complainant’s rights in the ALLCANEAT FOODS Mark,
and bad faith depend in part on whether an agency relationship exists under
Firstly, Karma Ventures is Mr. Obey’s agent and Dave’s Domains is Mr. Ford’s agent. Indeed, Complainant alleges as much in the Complaint when requesting to consolidate multiple cases. Complainant correctly notes that Karma Ventures, Mr. Obey, Mr. Ford and Dave’s Domains are all represented by the same legal counsel, and has previously asserted that Messrs Obey and Ford control the named Respondents.
Secondly, the Complainant correctly asserts that Mr. Stadtlander was
the agent of Messrs Ford and Obey while he was providing technical assistance
with their respective Domain Names.
Thirdly, Mr. Ford and Mr. Obey were never agents of Mr. Moufarrej. Though Complainant has repeatedly made this
allegation, Complainant has provided no evidence of any such agreement. Moreover, under
The Complainant attempts to view the domain name dispute in a vacuum. Complainant argues that the business dispute between Messrs Ford and Obey, on the one hand, and the other initial founders of AllCanEat Foods and Complainant, on the other, is “irrelevant and utterly unrelated to the trademarks and domain names.” This is simply false. The domain name dispute is a byproduct of and intertwined with a much larger dispute over corporate control of Complainant and of competing rights among Complainant’s cofounders and Board members. The Complainant further fails to appreciate that whether the underlying business disputes involve express contractual agreements – which they often do – or involve other legal issues is not what makes a case jurisdictionally improper. Rather, many types of disputes involving fact patterns other than the typical cyber squatting cases for which the UDRP was designed can place a case beyond the scope of the Policy.
Mr. Ford and Mr. Obey were elected Directors of Complainant’s Board on
August 4, 2009, as evidenced by the minutes from that meeting. The fact that
Respondents are Board members is also reflected in the filing receipt of
Complainant’s 2009 Annual Report in
Moreover, both Respondents are shareholders – a fact reflected in the
August 4 minutes, which refers to those in attendance, including Messrs Ford
and Obey, as “share holders”. Of the
30,000,000 outstanding shares of Common Stock in Complainant, Mr. Ford owns
3,600,000 and Mr. Obey owns 4,800,000 – a combined total of about 28% of the
outstanding shares. The other cofounders
– Mr. Moufarrej, Mrs. Sterrett and Mr. Summers – argue that none of these
shares have vested. Respondents dispute
the validity of the other cofounders’ vesting argument on the ground that it is
based on the improper tactics of Mr. Summers when he drafted the documents on
which the vesting argument depends.
The Complainant’s attempt to
characterize as bad faith “re-registration” Respondents’ grant of control over
the Disputed Domain Names to Mr. Stadtlander contradicts Complainant’s
assertions regarding agency.
FINDINGS AND 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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the
instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control
the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or
entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a
“complainant may relate to more than one domain name holder, provided that the
domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The issue of multiple respondents has been discussed in a
number of decisions. It should be noted that the wording of the applicable
paragraph is quite clear and unambiguous, see e.g. Accor v. Jose Garcia,
Jan Cerny, N/A, Dopici Nasrat, WIPO Case No. D2010-0471 [“ The
starting point is that normally it is not possible to commence a single UDRP
proceeding in relation to domain names registered in the name of more than one
person. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules state that “The complaint may relate to
more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the
same domain-name holder”, and although this is permissive rather than a
proscriptive provision, the intent of the drafters of the Rules seems
reasonably clear. So in a case where a complaint is filed against multiple
unconnected respondents, a panel may continue that case against one of the
respondents and dismiss it against the others…”]
Nevertheless, in cases where Panels have found that there
exists sufficient common control, or at least common interest, a consolidation
has been allowed. Circumstances indicating common control or interest may be
shared administrative or technical contacts, shared
postal or email addresses or that the domain names in dispute resolve into
essentially identical websites. A comprehensive overview discussion thereof can
be found in the case Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy
Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case
No. D2010-0281 and the decisions cited therein.
The Panel notes that the burden of proof to show such
circumstances lies with the Complainant. In this case the Complainant has asserted that the two identified
Respondents are acting in concert with or are under common control. Moreover it
is asserted that the Respondents are working together to keep the Complainant
from properly exercising control over its domain names. Finally, the
Respondents are represented by the same legal counsel.
Based on the
assertions of the Complainant, as well as the submission of the Respondents
where circumstances of common interest are clearly presented this Panel is
persuaded that this dispute allows for the consolidation of Respondents. Moreover,
the Respondents appear to tacitly agree to the request of the Complainant of
consolidation of the Respondents in its joint Response through the one
representative. Another circumstance adding to the appearance of one Respondent
is the fact that the domain names, with two exceptions, are resolved into
essentially the same website, a circumstance which is elaborated upon in the
Response as well. Therefore, the Panel concludes that this case allows for a
single decision with regard to both Respondents. Moreover, this conclusion will
not, considering the aims and purpose of the Policy, be contrary to it.
Preliminary Issue: Business/Contractual Dispute Outside the Scope of the UDRP
It is evident that the relationship between the parties in this dispute
is complex and the object of discord. The issues between the parties are not
limited to the law of trademarks but there appears to be issues where typically
the appropriate jurisdiction would be the general courts. This stand point is
not least supported by the legal arguments of the parties relating to the
validity of the trademark which forms the foundation of this dispute.
It appears as obvious to this Panel that the Respondents have initially
registered the domain names in dispute in the capacity of agents, for the
benefit of the company, the Complainant. Although the parties have referred to
The Panel therefore wishes to remind the parties that any dispute of
abusive domain name registration and use adjudicated by the administrative
Panels are governed solely by the UDRP and its elements. Questions regarding
the validity of the Complainant’s trademark under
Based on the above reasoning, this Panel finds that the present dispute
is outside the UDRP and declines to consider the case under the three elements
of the Policy. See also Fuze
Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 844252 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2007)
(concluding that when the respondent registers a domain name on behalf of the
complainant and then refuses to relinquish control over the domain name
registration, the cause of action is for breach of contract or fiduciary duty
and is thus outside the scope of the UDRP); see
also Frazier Winery LLC v. Hernandez,
FA 841081 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2007) (holding that disputes arising out of
a business relationship between the complainant and the respondent regarding
control over the domain name registration are outside the scope of the UDRP).
DECISION
For the reasons presented above, the Panel concludes that relief shall
be DENIED.
Jonas Gulliksson, Panelist
Dated: September 8, 2010
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum