Good Earthkeeping Organization, Inc. d/b/a TPS TECH v. Serge Ruiz
Claim Number: FA1509001636661
Complainant is Good Earthkeeping Organization, Inc. d/b/a TPS TECH (“Complainant”), California, USA. Respondent is Serge Ruiz (“Respondent”), represented by Martin L. McCann, Connecticut, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tpstech.com>, registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 4, 2015; the Forum received payment on September 4, 2015.
On September 8, 2015, Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tpstech.com> domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA 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 9, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 2015 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@tpstech.com. Also on September 9, 2015, 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 September 29, 2015.
On October 6, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.
On October 22, 2015, the Panel issued a Panel Order requesting the parties to provide:
• Details of all current legal proceedings between Complainant and Respondents Serge Ruiz, Jan Haemers and L & C S.A. (and their related parties), including copies of the most up-to-date pleadings; and
• Details of the precise legal relationship between Respondent Serge Ruiz and Respondent L & C S.A., including any documentary evidence.
In accordance with the Panel Order, Respondent filed timely additional submissions on November 20, 2015, and Complainant filed timely additional submissions on December 22, 2015.
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.
Paragraph 18 of the Rules provides as follows:
(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.
The background of this dispute involves a complex factual matrix involving several persons and entities related to the parties. There are ongoing criminal, civil and bankruptcy proceedings in Belgium relating to the subject matter of this dispute and, in particular, dealing with the question of who is the correct legal owner of the assets of the previous owner of the domain name. Such proceedings were initiated prior to the filing of the Complaint herein.
In all the circumstances, the Panel considers that that it would not be appropriate for the Panel to determine the question of ownership of the disputed domain name whilst these prior proceedings are ongoing.
Accordingly, the Panel determines, in accordance with paragraph 18 of the Rules, that this proceeding shall be terminated, without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to file a future UDRP complaint upon the resolution or discontinuation of the court proceedings.
Sebastian M W Hughes, Panelist
Dated: January 6, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page