PARTIES

Complainant is LC Insurance Group, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Curtis C. Coon, of Coon & Cole LLC, Suite 105, 305 W. Chesapeake Ave, Towson, MD 21204. Respondent is Bart Peabody & Assoc. c/o Steve Dean (“Respondent”), PO Box 32704, Baltimore, MD 21208.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <lcinsurancegroup.com> and <elmarassociates.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.

David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 25, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 8, 2006.

On April 26, 2006, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lcinsurancegroup.com> and <elmarassociates.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 May 11, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 31, 2006 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@lcinsurancegroup.com and postmaster@elmarassociates.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 31, 2006.

On June 7, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

[a.] Complainant owns the trade names LC INSURANCE GROUP, LLC and EL-MAR ASSOCIATES, INC., and registered the domain names <lcinsurancegroup.com> and <elmarassociates.com>.

[b.] Complainant contends that Respondent Steve Dean transferred ownership of the domains to himself during the course of his agency for Complainant and that Complainant had not authorized such transfer.

[c.] Respondent is not known by the domain names and has not made legitimate usages of the names.

[d.] Complainant alleges that Respondent unlawfully obtained transfer of the domain names as a means to collect a disputed debt.

B. Respondent

Respondent alleges that it transferred the domains from Complainant to itself with Complainant’s consent and authorization.

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.

In this case, the Panel has decided not to decide this case on its merits, so it will not be considering these three elements.

Resolution of the narrow issues on which the Panel is permitted to rule under the UDRP in this case would require the examination of additional factual and legal issues outside the scope of the UDRP. A determination of whether or not Respondent was authorized in the course of its agency for Complainant to transfer the domain from Complainant to itself would require an analysis of issues (such as the interpretation of any agency contract, any implied contract and any breach of fiduciary duty) which may be best resolved by a forum of broader jurisdiction.

Under Section 5 of the Policy, disputes outside of the narrower framework of Section 4 of the Policy “… shall be resolved through any court … available.” This Panel is not prepared to resolve these contractual or fiduciary duty issues since they are outside the framework of the UDRP. See Latent Tech. Group, Inc. v. Fritchie, FA95285 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 1, 2000) (dispute concerning employee’s registration of domain name in its own name and subsequent refusal to transfer it to employer raises issues of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty which are more appropriately decided in courts rather than before a UDRP panel).

This decision should not be viewed as a ruling in favor of Respondent. The Panel is simply of the view that this is not a dispute which it should be resolving on the merits and that its decision should leave the domain name registrations status quo.

DECISION

The Complaint of LC Insurance Group, LLC with respect to the domain names <lcinsurancegroup.com> and <elmarassociates.com> is hereby dismissed.

David A. Einhorn, Panelist

Dated: June 21, 2006