National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Hargrave Arts LLC c/o Carter Hargrave v. Chiefasian LLC c/o Martin Eng

Claim Number: FA0911001294273

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Hargrave Arts LLC c/o Carter Hargrave (“Complainant”), Oklahoma, USA.  Respondent is Chiefasian LLC c/o Martin Eng (“Respondent”), California, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jeetkunedo.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.

PANEL

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.

David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 12, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 16, 2009.

On November 12, 2009, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <jeetkunedo.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 November 18, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 8, 2009 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@jeetkunedo.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 8, 2009.

On December 9, 2009, an Additional Submission was received from the Complainant without the required fee. This submission was therefore not in compliance with Supplemental Rule #7, and has not been considered.

On December 17, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant makes the following contentions:

(1)   Respondent's <jeetkunedo.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's JEET KUNE DO common law mark.

(2)   Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <jeetkunedo.com> domain name.

(3)      Respondent registered and used the <jeetkunedo.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that Complainant has no rights to the mark JEET KUNE DO.

FINDINGS

Complainant claims to own common law rights in the term JEET KUNE DO, which refers to a form of martial arts. Jeet Kune Do was founded in the late 1960's by martial arts expert, Bruce Lee. Complainant is one of approximately 50 certified Jeet Kune Do instructors worldwide. Complainant claims to have been a student of the Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do School in California and to have acquired the rights in the name JEET KUNE DO. However, Complainant provides no evidence to support its assertion that it allegedly acquired rights to this mark.

DISCUSSION

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

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

In order to affect a transfer of a domain name under the UDRP, Complainant must show that it possesses rights in a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that it acquired rights to the mark from Bruce Lee and the Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do School and asks that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant, not to Bruce Lee. Complainant provides no evidence to the Panel that it has any arrangement to represent Bruce Lee or the Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do School, or that any rights in the JEET KUNE DO mark have been assigned or licensed to Complainant. Absent any additional evidence, Complainant does not have standing to bring this claim under the UDRP. See CMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Pitanguy Plastic Surgical Clinic, FA 155888 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (holding that Complainant had not demonstrated rights in the mark and therefore, did not have standing to bring a claim under the UDRP). As the present Complainant has not shown "rights" in the JEET KUNE DO mark for the purposes of the UDRP, the Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. See CMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Humphrey Bogart Club, FA 144631 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003).

As Complainant has failed to show standing with respect to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights, it is unnecessary for the Panel to address the second and third elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (legitimate interests and bad faith).

DECISION

Complainant having failed to show standing, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED without prejudice.

 

 

David A. Einhorn, Panelist Dated: December 31, 2009

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum