ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
1. Parties and Contested Domain Name
The complainant is Mr. Roy Singh, an individual
living in Toronto, Canada.
The Respondent is also an individual, Mr. Ty
McCarthy, whose address is in San Francisco, California.
The contested domain name is “webworx.com”.
2. Procedural history
The electronic version of the Complaint form was
filed on-line through eResolution’s Website on May 7, 2001. The hardcopy of
the Complaint Form and annexes were received on May 8, 2001.
Payment was received on May 18, 2001.
Upon receiving all the required information,
eResolution’s clerk proceeded to:
This inquiry lead the Clerk of eResolution to the
following conclusions: the Registrar is Network Solutions Inc., the Whois
database contains all the required contact information, the contested Domain
Name resolves to an inactive Web page and the Complaint is administratively
An email was sent to the Registrar by eResolution
Clerk’s Office to obtain confirmation and a copy of the Registration Agreement
on May 7, 2001. The requested
information was received May 8, 2001.
The Clerk then proceeded to send a copy of the
Complaint Form and the required Cover Sheet in accordance with paragraph 2 (a)
of the ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy. The
Clerk’s Office fulfilled all its responsibilities
under Paragraph 2(a)
in forwarding the Complaint to the Respondent, notifying the Complainant, the
concerned Registrar and ICANN on May 24, 2001.
This date is the official commencement date of the administrative
All the emails to the firstname.lastname@example.org
and to the Respondent returned ‘undeliverable’ except to the Respondent’s
Technical. All the faxes were
The complaint, official
notification and all the annexes were sent via registered mail with proof of
service, to the respondent. According
to the Canada Post tracking system, none were delivered.
The Respondent did not
submit a Response neither via eResolution’s website nor a signed version.
On June 15, 2001, the
Clerk’s Office contacted Bruno Gregoire Sainte Marie,
and requested that he acts as panelist in this case.
On June 18,
2001, Bruno Gregoire Sainte Marie accepted to
act as panelist in this case and filed the necessary Declaration of Independence
On June 19,
2001, the Clerk’s Office forwarded a user name and a password to Bruno
Gregoire Sainte Marie, allowing him to access the
Complaint Form, the Response Form, and the evidence through eResolution’s
Automated Docket Management System.
19, 2001, the parties were notified that Bruno
Gregoire Sainte Marie had been appointed and that a
decision was to be, save exceptional circumstances, handed down on July 3, 2001.
3. Factual Backgrounds
The Complainant owns the domain name
“webworx2000.com” which, according to his assertions, is specifically used
to promote his company Webworx Inc.
The Complainant also mentions that his company
has been in existence for 5 years.
At last, according to the complainant, the Respondent has made contact with him over the phone indicating that his sole purpose of owning the domain name “webworx.com” was to try and sell it to a company wishing to own that domain name.
4. Parties' Contentions
The Complainant states that the domain name
“webworx.com” is confusingly similar with his domain name
“webworx200.com” upon which the complaint is founded. The complainant
further states that he is awaiting trademark approval in order to use
“WEBWORX” in regards to internet services.
According to the complaint, the Respondent does
not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name as he does not own
a business and has specifically reserved webworx.com in order to resell it.
The complainant considers that the domain name is
being used in bad faith as the Respondent does not own or operate a business and
does not currently have an existing site which is functional under the domain
The Respondent has not filed any response.
5. Discussions and Findings
Article 15 (a) “Panel Decisions” of the Rules
for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (hereinafter “Rules for UDRP”)
provides that the “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”.
Furthermore, pursuant to article 3. b) (xv) of
the Rules for UDRP, the complaint shall “annex any documentary or other
evidence, including a copy of the Policy applicable to the domain name(s) in
dispute and any trademark or service mark registration upon which the complaint
relies, together with a schedule indexing such evidence”.
In this particular case, the complainant upholds
that his demands are well founded upon article 4 of the UDRP.
To support his statements, the Complainant has
not provided any document to the Panel. Nor has he annexed any documentary or
The panel is therefore not in the position to
authenticate the accuracy of the complainant’s assertions, and in particular
The complainant has not substantiated his request
for a transfer of the domain name “webworx.com”.
According to article 10 (d) of the Rules for UDRP
Policy which concerns the general powers of the Panel, “the Panel shall
determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the
In this case, the panel believes that the condition provided by article 10 (b) of the Rules for UDRP concerning the materiality and weight of evidence is not satisfied by the complaint filed by Mr. Roy Singh.
For the foregoing reasons, the panel concludes that the Complainant has not met its burden of proof under the UDRP and Rules for the UDRP. Accordingly, the panel finds the domain names webworx.com should not be transferred to the Complainant.