Yoskrai Sridhanasakulchai v. Pramote Sangsorn
Claim Number: FA0511000593814
Complainant is Yoskrai Sridhanasakulchai (“Complainant”), represented by Thaweephan Leingpibul, 296 Timber Ridge Dr., Kalamazoo, MI 49006. Respondent is Pramote Sangsorn (“Respondent”), 38 rue Notre-Dame de Nazareth, Paris F-75003, France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <thaidial.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 9, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 17, 2005.
On November 10, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <thaidial.com> domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 28, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 19, 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@thaidial.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 22, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <thaidial.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s THAIDIAL.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <thaidial.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <thaidial.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant Yoskrai Sridhanasakulchai has used the THAIDIAL.COM mark in connection with selling calling cards since 2000.
On October 22, 2005, Complainant discovered that its <thaidial.com> domain name had been illegally taken by Respondent and transferred from the AITdomains.com registrar to the GoDaddy.com registrar. Furthermore, Respondent transferred ownership of the disputed domain name from Complainant’s name to Respondent’s name, without the authorization of Complainant. Complainant contacted Respondent to have the disputed domain name transferred back to Complainant’s name, but Respondent failed to respond to the request. On October 27, 2005, the disputed domain name was put up for sale on Sedo.com with an initial bidding price of 2,000 Euros.
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.
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.
This case involves Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s acquisition of the <thaidial.com> domain name was by fraud or theft. However, the Policy was established to address and prevent abusive domain name registrations, an activity known as “cybersquatting,” which involves registering and using a domain name in order to attempt to benefit from a trademark holder’s rights in a mark that corresponds to the domain name. This case potentially involves a fraudulent registration transfer, which is a dispute that should be determined in a court of law. Thus, the Panel finds that this case is outside the scope of the Policy. See Decker v. Antwer, FA 263584 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2004) (“[S]ince the instant case does not involve the practice of cybersquatting and is more accurately described as a fraudulent registration transfer, the Panel finds that this dispute may be more suitable in a court of law as it exceeds the scope of the Policy.”).
Because the Complaint raises issues beyond the scope of the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: January 5, 2006
National
Arbitration Forum