DECISION

 

Big Canoe Property Owners Association, Inc. v. J Cornelius / No

Claim Number: FA2607002233109

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Big Canoe Property Owners Association, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kennington R. Groff of Bekiares Eliezer LLP dba Founders Legal, Georgia, USA. Respondent is J Cornelius / No ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bigcanoemoney.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

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.

 

Paddy Tam as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 16, 2026; Forum received payment on July 16, 2026.

 

On July 17, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bigcanoemoney.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 21, 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@bigcanoemoney.com. Also on July 28, 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 18, 2026.

 

On August 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paddy Tam as Panelist.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it owns registered rights in the BIG CANOE family of trademarks, including registrations for BIG CANOE, BIG CANOE REALTY, and BIG CANOE BROKERAGE. The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its marks because it incorporates the entirety of the BIG CANOE mark and merely adds the generic term "money". Complainant further asserts that the addition of this term does not distinguish the domain name from its trademarks.

 

The Complainant maintains that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks and is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant argues that Respondent's use of the domain name improperly trades upon Complainant's trademark rights and goodwill.

 

The Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to Complainant, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks when registering the domain name, used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, published financial information concerning Complainant, and allegedly accessed non-public information in violation of Complainant's Terms of Use and security measures. Complainant also contends that certain information appearing on Respondent's website is inaccurate and that Respondent's disclaimer is insufficient to dispel confusion. Complainant requests transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent argues that this is not a cybersquatting dispute but rather a disagreement arising within the Big Canoe community. Respondent states that he is a member of the community governed by Complainant and registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of discussing and analyzing issues relating to the community's finances.

 

The Respondent contends that the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name constitutes a legitimate noncommercial use under Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Respondent asserts that the website contains no advertising, affiliate links, subscriptions, donations, or other revenue-generating activities and exists solely to publish information and commentary regarding Complainant's finances. Respondent further notes that the website contains a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant.

 

The Respondent maintains that the term "Big Canoe" is used in the domain name to identify the subject matter of the website, while the additional term "money" makes clear that the website concerns discussion of financial matters relating to the Big Canoe community. Respondent denies attempting to impersonate Complainant or to profit from Complainant's trademark.

 

The Respondent denies Complainant's allegations regarding bad faith, including allegations of commercial gain, competitive use, unauthorized access, and cybersquatting. Respondent argues that the domain name was registered because the website concerns "Big Canoe's money" and that it has been used solely for that purpose. Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied and further seeks a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH").

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is a property owners association serving the Big Canoe community in Georgia and has established rights in the BIG CANOE trademark through multiple registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including registrations for BIG CANOE, BIG CANOE REALTY, and BIG CANOE BROKERAGE.

 

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on or about March 16, 2026.

 

The parties agree that the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name concerns the finances and operations of the Big Canoe community and the Complainant association. The Complainant alleges that the website contains inaccurate financial information, while Respondent states that the website publishes and analyzes financial information relating to the community.

 

The record indicates that Respondent is a member of the Big Canoe community governed by Complainant. The Respondent asserts that the website was created to discuss matters relating to the finances of the community and the association.

 

DISCUSSION

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."

 

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.

 

Preliminary Findings

The Complainant bears the burden of proving each element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In support of the Complaint, Complainant has submitted evidence of its trademark registrations for the BIG CANOE marks. Beyond the trademark registrations, however, the Complaint contains largely unsupported allegations. Complainant alleges that Respondent is publishing inaccurate financial information, improperly accessing confidential information, violating Complainant's Terms of Use, bypassing security measures, disrupting Complainant's business, creating consumer confusion, and acting in bad faith. The Complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate these allegations. The record contains no supporting declarations, copies of the alleged Terms of Use, evidence of unauthorized access, evidence demonstrating the alleged inaccuracies, evidence of actual confusion, evidence of commercial gain, or other documentary materials from which the Panel may independently evaluate these assertions.

 

The Panel's role is to evaluate the evidence submitted by the parties, not to develop the case on their behalf. The Panel is under no obligation to conduct independent factual investigations, search the Internet for evidence, visit websites to determine the facts, or otherwise supplement an insufficient record. Rather, pursuant to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel must decide the case based upon the statements and documents submitted.

 

The Panel further notes that a UDRP proceeding is intended to be a streamlined administrative process. A complainant is generally expected to present its complete case, together with all supporting evidence, when filing the Complaint. The Policy does not contemplate that a panel will compensate for evidentiary deficiencies by giving a party additional opportunities to develop its case after filing. A complainant must stand or fall on the record it elects to submit.

 

While the trademark registrations establish that Complainant possesses rights in the cited marks, trademark ownership alone is insufficient to justify transfer of a domain name. The material allegations upon which Complainant relies are largely unsupported by evidence. As a result, the Panel is unable to make reliable findings concerning the factual assertions advanced by Complainant. See Scentsational Shoppe, Inc. v. Jeffrey Potts, The Common Scents, Inc., D2023-3525 (WIPO October 12, 2023) ("Complainant asserts without explanation or argument that "Respondent is directly infringing on Complainant's trademark with the infringing domain name and website". Complainant offers no evidence of its own use its mark so there is no basis to evaluate the allegation of "infringement". Accordingly, Complainant does not establish a prima facie case and therefore does not shift the burden to Respondent to defend its use. Respondent's response nonetheless rebuts Complainant's allegations. Complainant fails to even discuss Respondent's website where, the Panel finds, Respondent uses the Domain Name "in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services". Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).")

 

The Panel also observes that the record suggests an underlying dispute between a community association and one of its members concerning the publication and discussion of the association's financial affairs. To the extent such disputes exist, they further illustrate the need for competent evidence rather than mere allegations. However, the Panel needs not resolve the nature of that broader dispute because the Complaint fails on evidentiary grounds alone. See USA QP ENTERPRISES Inc. dba USA Quickprint v. Admin Support / CR Consulting Ohio LLC, FA 2066056 (Forum Oct. 29, 2023).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof under the Policy. Given the insufficiency of the evidentiary record, the Panel declines to undertake a detailed analysis of the individual elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH").

 

RDNH is defined as using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name. Such a finding is generally reserved for cases in which a complainant knew or should have known that it could not succeed under any reasonable interpretation of the facts or law, yet nevertheless pursued the proceeding.

 

The Panel has denied the Complaint because Complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the factual allegations upon which its claims were based. The Panel finds that the record consists primarily of trademark registrations and unsupported assertions concerning Respondent's conduct. The failure to substantiate those assertions is fatal to the Complaint.

 

However, the Panel also finds that Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the BIG CANOE mark and that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates that mark in its entirety. The Panel is therefore not persuaded that the Complaint was brought solely to harass Respondent or that Complainant lacked a good faith basis for invoking the Policy. Rather, the record reflects a genuine dispute between the parties concerning Respondent's use of a domain name incorporating Complainant's trademark and relating to the affairs of the Big Canoe community.

 

While the Panel concludes that Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof, the Panel does not find sufficient evidence that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an abusive manner, or with knowledge that it was necessarily doomed to fail. The Panel therefore declines to enter a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bigcanoemoney.com> domain name be REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

 

Paddy Tam, Panelist

Dated: August 24, 2026