WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Christopher Cartwright v. Adolfo Aragon, Far East Russia Aircraft Services Inc Case No. D2008-1007 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Christopher Cartwright of Corte Madera, California, United States of America, represented by Hall & Stephen P.C., United States of America.
The Respondent is Adolfo Aragon, Far East Russia Aircraft Servcies Inc, Houston, Texas, United States of America, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP of United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 2, 2008. On July 4, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 4, 2008, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed the final amendment to the Complaint on July 31, 2008. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced August 4, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 24, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center August 22, 2008.
The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer, Kevin C. Trock and Gordon Arnold as panelists in this matter on September 30, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is an individual residing in Corte Madera, California, United States of America, who states that his principal place of business is in Prague, Czech Republic. The Complainant is a shareholder in the Respondent corporation and was formerly an officer and director of the corporation. The Complainant claims shareholdings in FERAS LLC (Romania) and FERAS Ukraine Ltd., as well as “further alliances” with FERAS Polska S.P. zo.o. (Poland), all offering “comprehensive executive jet services at airports with staff on the ground at many locations in Europe.”
The Complainant asserts, without further elaboration or documentary support, that he “holds the rights to the trade names and associated Service Marks in the countries named where the business is transacted.”
The Respondent is a Texas business corporation established in 1993 and based in Houston, Texas, United States of America. The Respondent operates or arranges “VIP” ground support services for executive aircraft landing in Russia, Poland, Croatia, Romania, Germany, and several other countries.
The Complainant originally registered the Domain Name on June 2, 1998. The Complainant says that he did this on his own behalf and paid the registration fee with his personal credit card. The Respondent contends that he did so as an officer and director of the Respondent and in the name of the Respondent. Earlier this year, after the Complainant's removal from his position as an officer and director of the Respondent, the Respondent changed the registration details for the Domain Name by updating the address and adding the name of a current officer and director. Both parties allude to ongoing disputes between the Complainant and the Respondent, including disputed ownership of the Domain Name. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant says he holds relevant service marks and has always owned the Domain Name, in which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has “hijacked” the Domain Name in bad faith by changing the registration details. B. Respondent
The Respondent states that it has owned the Domain Name since it was registered and has used it continuously and legitimately in connection with its executive aircraft ground services business.
The Respondent charges the Complainant with attempted reverse domain-name hijacking. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules,
“A Panel shall 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.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that he holds service marks, but he does not identify them or offer evidence of such marks. At best, it could be said that he alludes to hold service mark rights in those entities in which he claims to be a Shareholder. Even viewing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Complainant, it cannot be understood in which marks the Complainant is claiming rights. He has not, therefore, established the first prerequisite for a Complaint under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Given the Panel's holding on the first element of the Complaint, it is not necessary to address this element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the Panel's holding on the first element of the Complaint, it is not necessary to address this element. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides as follows:
“If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”
The Rules do not provide for monetary remedies or specific relief in such a case.
The Panel finds insufficient evidence on the record in this proceeding to rule that the Complaint was brought in “bad faith” or “primarily to harass the domain name holder”. The Complainant advances claims to ownership of the Domain Name that, in the absence of proof of a mark, may be resolved in a judicial forum but not in this UDRP proceeding. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
W. Scott Blackmer
Presiding Panelist
Kevin C. Trock
Panelist
Gordon Arnold
Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy