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,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <drinkfuze.com>, <drinknos.com>, and <drinkspeedowater.com>, registered with Register.com, 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, and firstname.lastname@example.org> by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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 <drinkspeedowater.com> domain name on
The domain names were registered in Respondent’s name in contravention of a business agreement entered between Complainant and Respondent.
Respondent’s <drinkfuze.com>, <drinknos.com>, and <drinkspeedowater.com> domain names are identical to Complainant’s DRINKFUZE, DRINKNOS, and DRINKSPEEDOWATER marks.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <drinkfuze.com>, <drinknos.com>, and <drinkspeedowater.com> domain names.
Respondent registered and used the domain names <drinkfuze.com>, <drinknos.com>, and <drinkspeedowater.com> 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
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Complaint herein be DISMISSED, with prejudice and without further proceedings.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum