national arbitration forum




Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc. c/o Thomas Siedleczka

Claim Number: FA0611000844252



Complainant is Fuze Beverage, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Andrew B. Fisher, of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., 25 Main Street, PO Box 800, Court Plaza North, Hackensack, NJ 07602-0800.  Respondent is CGEYE, Inc. c/o Thomas Siedleczka (“Respondent”), 800 Jefferson St., Hoboken, NJ 07030.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, and <>, registered with, Inc.



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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 17, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 20, 2006.


On November 17, 2006,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain names <>, <>, and <> are registered with, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 November 27, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 23, 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,, and> by e-mail.


Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On December 23, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


Complainant markets branded products at retail under the DRINKFUZE, DRINKNOS, and DRINKSPEEDOWATER marks, and has done so since as early as 2001. 


In 2004, Complainant entered into an agency relationship with Respondent for the purpose of registering in Complainant’s name the three domain names here in dispute. 


Ever since the registration of the subject domain names, Complainant has maintained and provided the content for the domains, as well as paying all necessary registration and renewal fees.


Respondent registered the <> domain name on April 1, 2004; the <> domain name on October 27, 2004; and the <> domain name on February 10, 2004. 


The domain names were registered in Respondent’s name in contravention of a business agreement entered between Complainant and Respondent. 


Respondent’s <>, <>, and <> domain names are identical to Complainant’s DRINKFUZE, DRINKNOS, and DRINKSPEEDOWATER marks.


Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <>, <>, and <> domain names.


Respondent registered and used the domain names <>, <>, and <> in bad faith.


B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



The controversy described in the Complaint is outside the purview of the Policy, and Complainant has failed to sustain its burden of proof under the Policy.



The Complaint before us describes what appears to be a common-form claim of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty.  It is not the kind of controversy, grounded exclusively in abusive cyber-squatting, that the Policy was designed to address.  See, for example, Summit Industries, Inc. v Jardine Performance Exhaust Inc., D2001-1001 (WIPO Oct. 15, 2001).  Moreover, while it has made extensive allegations of misconduct against Respondent, Complainant has not supported any of those allegations with even a scintilla of evidence.  Therefore, even if the Complaint were within the jurisdiction of this Panel, and even if Complainant’s allegations might have been proven to have merit, we would be constrained to conclude that Complainant has failed altogether in meeting its burden of proof under the Policy. See Rogers Cable Inc. v. Arran Raja Lal, D2001-0201 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001).



Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Complaint herein be DISMISSED, with prejudice and without further proceedings.



Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated:  January 8, 2007



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum