Under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy


Roy Singh

Respondent: Ty McCarthy
Case Number: AF-0839
Contested Domain Name:
Panel Member: Bruno Grégoire Sainte Marie


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 “”.

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:

  • Confirm the identity of the Registrar for the contested Domain Name;
  • Verify the Registrar’s Whois Database and confirm all the essential contact information for Respondent;
  • Verify if the contested Domain Name resolved to an active Web page;
  • Verify if the Complaint was administratively compliant.

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 compliant.

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 proceeding.

All the emails to the and to the Respondent returned ‘undeliverable’ except to the Respondent’s Technical.  All the faxes were unsuccessful. 

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 and Impartiality.

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.

On June 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 “” 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 “” 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 “” is confusingly similar with his domain name “” 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 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 name.

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 other evidence. 

The panel is therefore not in the position to authenticate the accuracy of the complainant’s assertions, and in particular concerning : 

  • his rights on the domain name “”; 
  • his awaiting for a trademark approval in order to use “WEBWORX” in regards to internet services;
  • the fact that the respondent has specifically reserved in order to resell it.

The complainant has not substantiated his request for a transfer of the domain name “”. 

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 evidence”.

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.

6. Conclusion

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 should not be transferred to the Complainant.

7. Signature                                

(s) Bruno Grégoire Sainte Marie
Paris, France 
July 3, 2001.
Presiding Panelist