G-Sight Solutions, LLC v. Ryan McMillin / G-Sight Solutions Inc.
Claim Number: FA1808001803828
Complainant is G-Sight Solutions, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Peter Tormey of Antero, Tormey, Petrin PC, California, USA. Respondent is Ryan McMillin / G-Sight Solutions Inc. (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <g-sight.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 28, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 28, 2018.
On August 30, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <g-sight.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 6, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 2018 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@g-sight.com. Also on September 6, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 28, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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
Complainant makes no arguments that are recognized under the Policy. Complainant describes a business relationship with Respondent claiming that he is a disgruntled former employee.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
As Complainant makes no arguments that are cognizable under the UDRP, the Panel has no choice but to find for Respondent.
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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 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.
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(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it 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 (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.”).
Complainant makes no argument regarding the similarity between the disputed domain name and its prior trademark rights, a precondition to having any form of standing to bring a UDRP complaint. Rather, Complainant goes to some detail describing a failed business relationship with Respondent. The mere existence of a business relationship between the parties is insufficient to establish that Complainant has prior trademark rights that it desires to enforce against Respondent. That is, this disputed appears to be one of contractual or other employment law interpretation which falls outside of the scope of the UDRP.
As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to carry its burden of proof regarding the similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s trademark. As such, this matter shall be dismissed and a full consideration of the three factors at issue in a domain name proceeding under the Policy shall be omitted.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be denied.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <g-sight.com> domain name remain with Respondent.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: October 1, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page