The Complainant is Love Your Neighbor Corp., Detroit, MI, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Godspeaks Inc. a/k/a CIN, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA ("Respondent") represented by David J. Markese, of Bird & Associates.

The domain names at issue are <godspeaks.net>, <godspeaks.org>, <wuzupgod.com>, <wuzupgod.org>, and <wuzupgod.net>, registered with Tucows, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on June 12, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 14, 2001.

On June 19, 2001, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <godspeaks.net>, <godspeaks.org>, <wuzupgod.com>, <wuzupgod.org>, and <wuzupgod.net> are registered with Tucows, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, 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 June 20, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 10, 2001 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@godspeaks.net, postmaster@godspeaks.org, postmaster@wuzupgod.com, postmaster@wuzupgod.org, and postmaster@wuzupgod.net by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on July 10, 2001.

On July 16, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.

Respondent, in correspondence with the Forum dated July 10, 2001, requested that a physical in-person hearing be held pursuant to Policy Rule 13. Rule 13 states "There shall be no in-person hearings (including hearings by telephone, videoconference, and web conference), unless the Panel determines, in its sole discretion and as an exceptional matter, that such a hearing is necessary for deciding the complaint" (emphasis added). Respondent fails to provide an explanation as to what exceptional circumstances make it necessary to hold an in-person hearing, pursuant to ICANN Rule 13. Accordingly, the Panel exercises its discretion to deny an in-person hearing of this dispute.

The Complainant requests that the domain names at issue be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges common law use and ownership of federally registered marks: "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR" and "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR." The domain names at issue are: <godspeaks.net>, <godspeaks.org>, <wuzupgod.com>, <wuzupgod.org>, and <wuzupgod.net>. Complainant does not allege that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. Rather, Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the trademarks without right or authorization on websites associated with the domain names at issue. Further, Complainant says that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the trademarks which have been displayed on the websites associated with the domain names at issue, and this use is said by Complainant to be in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent points out that there is no claimed domain name infringement involved, in that the domain names at issue are not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has an interest. Respondent states that the Forum has no subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy described in the Complaint. Further, Respondent claims that it has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue and denies that it has engaged in any bad faith registration or use of the domain names at issue.

Complainant has rights in two similar trademarks used in its religious activities: "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR" and "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR," which were registered for certain uses with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the first being effective in 1996. It appears from the rambling and all but unintelligible allegations of the Complaint that the gravamen of the claim is that the Respondent is displaying Complainant’s trademarks, and variations thereof at websites associated with the domain names at issue: <godspeaks.net>, <godspeaks.org>, <wuzupgod.com>, <wuzupgod.org>, and <wuzupgod.net>. There are no allegations whatsoever that Complainant claims rights or interests in respect of trademarks which are identical or confusingly similar to the domain names at issue. Respondent points out these omissions in its Response and contends that ICANN UDRP proceedings have no subject matter jurisdiction over such controversies.

As is further pointed out in the Response, Complainant does not allege that Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in respect of the websites associated with the domain names at issue, however Complainant argues that its trademarks are improperly used in the content of those websites. Complainant is further enraged by Respondent’s use of the following message on ten thousand billboards throughout the United States of America: "That ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Thing … I Meant That. … God."

As noted in the response, Complainant does not allege that the domain names at issue were registered and are being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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.

Complainant fails to establish or even allege that it has rights in the disputed domain names. The Complaint addresses the content of the websites associated with the domain names in dispute and complains that Respondent is engaged in infringing conduct by using Complainant’s trademarks in such content. Complainant never suggests that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant claims interests. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to establish any rights in the disputed domain names. See Powrachute Inc. v. Buckeye Indus., AF-0076 (e-Resolution, May 30, 2000) (dismissing a Complaint where complainant failed to contend, provide evidence, or give arguments to the effect that it had either a registered trademark or service mark in POWRACHUTE or any similar name, or that it had a common law trademark in the name).

Furthermore, I find that the <godspeaks.org>, <godspeaks.net>, <wuzupgod.com>, <wuzupgod.org>, <wuzupgod.net> domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR or LOVE THY NEIGHBOR marks.

Accordingly, I find that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has not been satisfied by the Complainant. This Panel has no subject matter, personal or in rem jurisdiction over the ten thousand billboards containing Respondent’s relayed message: "That ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Thing … I Meant That. … God." It is suggested that Complainant and Respondent, in a neighborly way, take that infringement controversy to a much higher authority.

Complainant fails completely to raise any question with respect to the rights and interests of Respondent in respect of the domain names at issue. Respondent is commonly known by the <godspeaks.org> and <godspeaks.net> domain names because they fully incorporate Respondent’s corporate name, GodSpeaks, Inc. See VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign C.A., D2000-0303 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name since the domain name reflects Respondent’s company name).

Accordingly, I find that Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has not been satisfied by the Complainant.

Complainant has failed to allege any facts to support a finding of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. See Loris Azzaro BV, SARL v. Asterix & De Vasconcellos, D2000-0608 (WIPO Sept. 4, 2000) (refusing to transfer the domain name where "Mere belief and indignation by Complainant that Respondents have registered and are using the Domain Name in bad faith are insufficient to warrant the making of such a finding in the absence of conclusive evidence").

Accordingly, I find that Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has not been satisfied by the Complainant.

Complainant’s allegations are not sufficiently comprehensible to be threatening or intimidating to Respondent and do not rise to the dignity of reverse domain name hijacking. See Business Architecture Group, Inc. v. Reflex Publ’g, FA 97051 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2001) (declining to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking pursuant to Paragraph 15(e), because Complainant did not have a clear understanding of trademark principles).

Accordingly, this Panel rules in favor of the Respondent and directs that the domain names at issue, <godspeaks.org>, <godspeaks.net>, <wuzupgod.com>, <wuzupgod.org>, <wuzupgod.net>, not be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.