Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale

Claim Number: FA0008000095465


The Complainant is Karl Albrecht International Karl Albrecht, San Diego, CA, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Eric Natale, Miami, FL, USA ("Respondent").


The domain name at issue is "KARLALBRECHT.COM", registered with, Inc.


The Panelist James P. Buchele certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 08/22/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 8/21/2000.

On 8/23/2000,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name " " is registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On 08/23/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 9/12/2000 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 by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, The Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On, September 15, 2000 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.


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


    1. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions are as follows.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not file a Response.


The Complainant has written over 20 books and numerous articles on various aspects of business, management, marketing, and corporate strategy. Several of the Complainant’s books have been used as texts in business courses at colleges and universities.

The Complainant has consulted with many well-known corporations and organizations such as the Australian government, US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy. The Complainant has also lectured internationally on various business topics at conferences sponsored by organizations such as American Management Association, Japanese Management Association, Korean Management Association, Irish Management Association, Irish Management Institute, Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management, Singapore Institute of Management, and Israeli Management Centre. The Complainant is listed in "The Guru Guide", a directory of best-known business thinkers.

The Complainant currently owns and uses the domain name <>. The Complainant attempted to register the domain name in question, but selected <> instead because the domain name in question was already registered.

The Respondent registered the domain name on December 8, 1999. The Respondent has made no use of the domain name. The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent both by letter and email. The Complainant received no response.


The Respondent’s failure to submit a response permits the Panel to make reasonable assumptions as necessary, based on the Complaint. ICANN Uniform Rule 14(b).

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in his name. See Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that trademark registration was not necessary and that the name "Julia Roberts" has sufficient secondary association with the Complainant that common law trademark rights exist); Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235 (WIPO May 22, 2000) (finding that the Complainant has common law rights to her name). The Complainant has a common law mark consisting of his name.

The Respondent’s domain name is composed entirely of the Complainant’s name. Thus, the Panel determines that the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s common law mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. The Respondent has not denied this contention.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name "KARLALBRECHT.COM", which is clearly associated with the Complainant. Policy 4.c.(ii). The Respondent is not associated with the Complainant in any way, nor has been licensed to use the Complainant’s name or intellectual property. The Respondent is not named "Karl Albrecht" or any derivation thereof. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. See Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Spanno Industries, FA 95283 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <CALVINKLINE.COM>).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the domain name was registered in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The Respondent intentionally registered a domain name that uses the Complainant’s name. There is no reasonable possibility that the name "KARLALBRECHT.COM" was selected at random. There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude that the registration was done in bad faith.

The Respondent has "parked" the domain name; the domain name does not resolve to an operational website. Holding domain names that infringe on others’ marks is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Greg Martineau, FA 95359 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name, in addition to the passive holding of the domain name, reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith). The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.


Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "KARLALBRECHT.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

James P. Buchele


Dated: September 16, 2000




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page