National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

The CIA Group, LLC v. CIA c/o David Altman

Claim Number: FA0509000568505

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is The CIA Group, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by William Y. Klett of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, 1441 Main Street, Suite 1500, Columbia, SC 29211.  Respondent is CIA c/o David Altman (“Respondent”), represented by Joseph Bradley Bennett of 101 W. Park Ave., Greenville, SC 29601.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

 

The domain name at issue is <theciagroup.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, 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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 28, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 3, 2005.

 

On September 29, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <theciagroup.com> domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 October 11, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 31, 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@theciagroup.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received on October 31, 2005.  However, the Response was not received in electronic format and is, therefore, not considered to be in compliance with ICANN Rule # 5 (a).  Nevertheless, the Panel, in the exercise of its discretion, will give consideration to the Response.  On November 9, 2005, Complainant submitted a Supplemental Submission which was untimely and, accordingly, it will not be given consideration.

 

On November 4, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

 

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

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

 

A.     Complainant

 

Complainant asserts that it is a South Carolina limited liability company which provides services relating to indoor environmental quality, including air quality evaluations, decontamination, and air purification.  Complainant contends that it has used the marks THE CIA GROUP and THE CERTIFIED INDOOR AIR GROUP in connection with its services since July 2003. 

 

The Respondent was a former employee of The CIA Group, LLC and is currently a shareholder.  Respondent registered the domain name at issue in this case.  On July 11, 2005, Complainant terminated Respondent’s employment.  According to Complainant, in retaliation for his termination, Respondent has refused to transfer the domain name to Complainant.

 

B.     Respondent

 

Respondent contends that since 2002, he has been an “owner/member” of the Complainant.  He contends that as an owner/member, he has the right to access and utilize the domain name.  Respondent contends that his use of the domain name only became an issue when members of the company engaged in a dispute over its operation and a struggle for control of the company’s operations began.

 

FINDINGS

 

The parties to this dispute are owners or former owners of The CIA Group, LLC and they are disputing the rights of the respective owners to own and/or control access to the domain name at issue in this proceeding.

 

DISCUSSION

           

The Panel finds that this case is outside the scope of the Policy.  According to both Complainant and the Response, this case involves a dispute over whether Respondent continues to be involved with Complainant as an owner or employee and which of the parties has rights to control the domain name at issue.  The Policy was created to deal with abusive domain name registrations and not other disputes that may tangentially involve a domain name.

 

The Panel has the authority to determine whether this case is within the scope of the Policy or whether the case should be dismissed.  See Latent Tech. Group, Inc. v. Fritchie, FA 95285 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 1, 2000) (dispute concerning employee’s registration of domain name in his own name and subsequent refusal to transfer it to employer raises issues of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that are more appropriately decided in court, not before a UDRP panel); see also Thread.com, LLC v. Poploff, D2000-1470 (WIPO Jan. 5, 2001) (refusing to transfer the domain name and stating that the ICANN Policy does not apply because attempting “to shoehorn what is essentially a business dispute between former partners into a proceeding to adjudicate cybersquatting is, at its core, misguided, if not a misuse of the Policy”); Commercial Publ’g Co. v. EarthComm., Inc., FA 95013 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 20, 2000) (finding that the Policy’s administrative procedure is “intended only for the relatively narrow class of cases of ‘abusive registrations’ . . . The [P]olicy relegates all ‘legitimate disputes’ to the courts”).

 

Because the dispute between the parties is beyond the scope of these proceedings, the Panel must dismiss the complaint without prejudice to any rights the parties may have in another forum.

 

 

DECISION

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2005