The Center For Computer Technology, Inc.
d/b/a Computer Graphics Training Center v. Domain Listing Agent (NRPDP)
Claim
Number: FA0506000495379
Complainant is The Center For Computer Technology, Inc. d/b/a Computer Graphics Training Center (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen L. Anderson of Anderson & Associates,
27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 211, Temecula, CA 92590. Respondent is Domain Listing Agent (NRPDB) (“Respondent”), PO Box 927010, San
Diego, CA 92192-7010.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <careertraining.com>, registered with Names4Ever.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically June 10,
2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint June
13, 2005.
On
June 17, 2005, Names4Ever confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum
that the domain name <careertraining.com> is registered with Names4Ever
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Names4Ever verified that Respondent is bound
by the Names4Ever registration agreement and thereby has 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 17, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 7, 2005, 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 postmaster@careertraining.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
July 12, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn
Marks Johnson 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:
1. The domain name that Respondent
registered, <careertraining.com>, is identical to Complainant’s
CAREER TRAINING mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <careertraining.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <careertraining.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this
proceeding.
Complainant, The
Center for Computer Technology, Inc., has used the CAREER TRAINING mark in
connection with the offering of educational services as related to computer
programming, computer graphics, Internet website design and interior
design.
Since as early
as 1997, Complainant has publicly used and advertised the CAREER TRAINING mark
on the Internet and on numerous offline publications. In addition, Complainant has advertised its services in the
Verizon yellow pages directory for New York City, Brooklyn and Queens. At a considerable expense, Complainant has
also created, published, and distributed more than twenty thousand (20,000)
catalogs of graphic and web design class offerings and certificate programs.
Complainant
alleges that after Complainant’s email account lapsed, without Complainant’s
knowledge or consent, Respondent created an email account using the same name
as previously used by Complainant for Complainant’s email account. Complainant contends that on or about August
21, 2004, Respondent used this email account to fraudulently transfer the
ownership of the <careertraining.com> domain name into
Respondent’s 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
will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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.
This case
involves Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s acquisition of the <careertraining.com>
domain name was by fraud or theft.
However, the Policy was established with the purpose of curtailing
abusive domain name registrations, an activity known as “cybersquatting,” which
involves registering and using a domain name in order to attempt to benefit
from a trademark holder’s rights in a mark that corresponds to the domain
name. This case potentially involves a
fraudulent registration transfer, which is likely a dispute that should be
determined in a court of law. Thus, the
Panel finds that this case is outside the scope of the Policy. See Decker v. Antwer, FA
263584 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2004) (“[S]ince the instant case does not
involve the practice of cybersquatting and is more accurately described as a
fraudulent registration transfer, the Panel finds that this dispute may be more
suitable in a court of law as it exceeds the scope of the Policy.”); see
also Commercial Publ’g Co. v. EarthComm., Inc., FA 95013 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 20, 2000) (stating that the Policy’s administrative procedure is “intended
only for the relatively narrow class of cases of ‘abusive registrations.’” Cases where registered domain names are
subject to legitimate disputes are relegated to the courts).
Having failed to
establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: July 22, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page