DECISION

 

Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust Partnership v. Brittany Moorefield / ansel adams gallery

Claim Number: FA2607002230775

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust Partnership ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Adams, California, USA. Respondent is Brittany Moorefield / ansel adams gallery ("Respondent"), represented by Danna J. Cotman of ARC Intellectual Property Law, California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ansel-adams.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 2, 2026; Forum received payment on July 2, 2026.

 

On July 7, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ansel-adams.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 July 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2026 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@ansel-adams.com. Also on July 16, 2026, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 10, 2026.

 

On August 11, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

On August 11, 2026, Forum received Complainants' Request For Consideration Of Additional Written Submission Pursuant To Forum Supplemental Rule 7.

 

On August 12, 2026, Forum received Respondent's Supplemental Filing in Response to Complainants' Supplemental Filing under Rule 7.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Best's Studio, Inc., doing business as The Ansel Adams Gallery (the "Gallery"), operates a fine art gallery in Yosemite National Park specializing in original Ansel Adams photographs and related fine art photography. It uses the domain name <anseladams.com> for its primary website, email communications, and commercial operations, and the domain has been continuously developed and used in commerce for over twenty-five years. Complainant Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust Partnership (the "Trust") is the owner of various registrations for the ANSEL ADAMS and THE ANSEL ADAMS GALLERY marks at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (i.e., Reg. No. 4177732 dated July 24, 2012; Reg. No. 4656467 dated December 16, 2014; and Reg. No. 1703868 dated July 28, 1992). The Gallery is an authorized licensee of the Trust and has continuously used the ANSEL ADAMS and THE ANSEL ADAMS GALLERY marks in commerce since before 2000. Respondent was formerly employed by Gallery as its Director of Fine Art Photography Sales and registered the disputed domain name on December 31, 2025. Her employment ended in June of 2026.

 

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trust's trademarks as it incorporates the entirety of the ANSEL ADAMS mark and adds only a hyphen and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where she is not commonly known by the domain name and she has used it for email correspondence with the Gallery's clients without the Gallery's consent which is not use of the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the Trust's marks and based on the above-mentioned activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent denies that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trust's marks. She further denies that she lacked legitimate interest to register the domain name as she was employed by the Gallery at the time and set up the disputed domain name "to aid her in handling emails on Complainant's behalf." Similarly, bad faith is denied as Complainant's have not proven the same.

 

In any event, "the Respondent agrees to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to Complainants" and has further stated that, "[s]ince the employment relationship ended in June 2026, the Disputed Domain

Name can be transferred back to Complainants." In her Supplemental Filing, it is repeated that "Respondent has agreed to transfer the domain to Complainants."

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONCURRENT COURT LITIGATION

The Parties note that they are also Parties in a case currently underway in the Federal Court for the Southern District of California. Rule 18 provides, in pertinent part: "(a) In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision." Panels have often rendered a decision despite concurrent court litigation when the domain name issues are ancillary to other issues in those proceedings and the domain name issues can be resolved without reference to the remedies at issue in the court case. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") at ¶ 4.14.2, states that "Panels generally issue a UDRP decision on the merits even in an overlapping court-UDRP proceeding scenario where, notwithstanding the fact that a UDRP decision would not be binding on the court, the relative expediency of the UDRP versus courts is seen as a benefit to the parties. Panel reluctance to terminate a UDRP case on this basis often also takes account of, and respects, the potential for a court action to address causes of action separate from that being addressed in the UDRP proceeding."  Where Panels have proceeded to render decisions despite the concurrency of litigation between the parties, the court cases in those disputes often involve a variety of issues beyond those in the proceedings under the Policy and where the disputed domain name is either not contested or is at least ancillary to such issues. See Keller Williams Realty, Inc. and Rellek Publishing Partners, LLC v. Globadigm Group, FA 1401105 (Forum Sep. 20, 2011) ("the instant dispute contains a question of contractual interpretation, and thus falls outside the scope of the UDRP.")

 

Here, the Complaint states that "[t]he action concerns, among other matters, Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name and associated email accounts" whereas Respondent states that "there is a corresponding Federal Court case related to employment and other related disputes between the parties." The Panel notes that neither Party has submitted any supporting evidence relating to the litigation and so the Panel is unable to determine whether it involves any issues relevant to the disputed domain name or the present proceedings under the Policy. As such, the Panel elects to proceed with the present case despite the existence of ongoing litigation between the Parties.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In the instant proceedings, there are two named Complainants. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." The Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

The two named Complainants in this matter are the Trust and the Gallery. The Complaint states that the Gallery "is an authorized licensee of the Trust…"

 

Previous panels have interpreted the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

See also Procter & Gamble Business Services Canada Company, The Gillette Company LLC, Braun GmbH and The Procter & Gamble company v. Whois privacy protection service, Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua / Artem Shostak, Private person 66478, Whois privacy protection service, Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua / Artem Shostak, Private person 53397, Privacy Protection, HOSTING UKRAINE LTD / Коваленко Валерий/Konovalenko Valeriy, Privacy Protection, HOSTING UKRAINE LLC / Коваленко Валерий/Konovalenko Valeriy, D2017-1493 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2017) (consolidation of multiple complainants found to be equitable and procedurally efficient where "[t]he Complainant Procter & Gamble is a parent company of the First Three Complainants. Therefore, the evidence shows that the Complainants have a common grievance against the Respondents by virtue of having common legal interest.").

 

In the present case, the Panel interprets the stated relationship between the two named Complainants as a licensor and licensee. Respondent has not objected to the joinder of both the Trust and the Gallery in this case or questioned their asserted relationship. Under the circumstances the Panel finds that there is a link between the two named Complainants and that they have a specific common grievance against the Respondent who has engaged in a common action that has affected the Complainants in a similar fashion.

 

For the sake of simplicity, the Trust and the Gallery will hereafter be referred to in this decision as "Complainant" unless otherwise noted.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

The Panel notes that, in a circumstance such as this where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, it may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) ("In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy."); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.")

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In light of the Respondent's consent to transfer of the disputed domain name, as noted above, and as Complainant has requested the same action as Respondent (i.e., transfer of the disputed domain name), the Panel has determined that it is not necessary to analyze the present case under the elements of the UDRP but, rather, simply issue an order that meets the parties' mutual request

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

FINDINGS

Upon the consent of Respondent, the disputed domain name may be transferred to Complainant.

 

DECISION

It is Ordered that the <ansel-adams.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: August 14, 2026