Taylor Vaughn v. ROCKETJOB.COM
Claim Number: FA0509000558212
Complainant is Taylor Vaughn (“Complainant”), 1889 W. Queen Creek Rd. #1088, Chandler, AZ 85248. Respondent is ROCKETJOB.COM (“Respondent”), 29542 Tamarron, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net>, registered with Network Solutions, 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.
Sandra Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 11, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 19, 2005.
On September 13, 2005, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 26, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 17, 2005 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 postmaster@rocketjobs.com and postmaster@rocketjobs.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 20, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as Panelist.
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:
1. Respondent’s <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names are identical to Complainant’s ROCKET JOBS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Taylor Vaughn, uses the ROCKET JOBS mark in connection with Complainant’s online employment opportunities and career placement business. Complainant has invested money into developing a website and establishing a presence at the <rocketjobs.org> domain name since August 2004.
Respondent registered the <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names on August 30, 1999. Respondent is not making any use of the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
Respondent registered the <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names in 1999. Complainant did not use the ROCKET JOBS mark until 2004. There is no conceivable way that Respondent could have had knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain names. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish bad faith registration and use of the <rocketjobs.com> and <rocketjobs.net> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Ode v. Intership Ltd., D2001-0074 (WIPO May 1, 2001) (“[W]e are of the unanimous view that the trademark must predate the domain name.”); see also Open Sys. Computing AS v. degli Alessandri, D2000-1393 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding no bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name in question before application and commencement of use of the trademark by the complainant); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also It Takes 2 v. C.,J., FA 384923 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 15, 2005) ("[I]n the absence of any evidence of knowledge on the part of Respondent of Complainant, its mark or its services at the time Respondent acquired the domain name, the Panel finds Complainant has failed to establish registration in bad faith."); see also U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC v. Telepathy, Inc., FA 365884 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 17, 2005) (“Without knowledge of Complainant or its claim of right in the mark, it is difficult to see how Respondent could have the specific intent required for it to act in bad faith against the rights of Complainant.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has not been satisfied.
Since Complainant failed to establish bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), it is unnecessary to address ¶¶ 4(a)(i) and (ii) of the Policy. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because Complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, Complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining elements unnecessary); see also Ricom, Inc. v. Ricom, FA 348011 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2004) (finding that failure to establish one element of the Policy deems it unnecessary for the Panel to address any other element).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 2, 2005
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum