|
1. Parties and Contested Domain Name
The Complainant is Christus Rex, Inc. ("Complainant"), a non-profit religious corporation registered in the State of California under
No. 2079644. The Respondent is Kurtis K. Karr ("Respondent"), an individual with a postal address in La Feria, Texas. The Domain
Name at issue is Christusrex.com ("Domain Name"), which is registered with Network Solutions, Inc., based in the United States of
America. The Complainant seeks a transfer of the Domain Name.
2. Procedural History
The electronic version of the Complaint form was filed on-line through eResolution's (the "provider") web site on April 18, 2000.
The hardcopy of the Complaint Form was received on April 25, 2000. Payment was received on April 20, 2000.
Upon receiving all the required information, the provider's Clerk proceeded to:
1. Confirm the identity of the Registrar for the contested Domain Name;
2. Verify the Registrar's Whois Database and confirm all the required contact information for Respondent;
3. Verify if the contested Domain Name resolved to an active web page;
4. Verify if the Complaint was administratively compliant.
The provider's Clerk confirmed the Registrar to be Network Solutions Inc., the required contact information for all parties, and
that the Registrar is Network Solutions Inc. The Clerk also confirmed that the contested Domain Name resolves to an inactive web
page and the Complainant is administratively compliant. 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 ("ICANN RULES").
The Clerk fulfilled all its responsibilities under Paragraph 2(a) in connection with forwarding the Complaint to the Respondent
on April 27, 2000. That date is the commencement date of the administrative proceeding. On April 27, 2000, the Clerk's office notified
the Complainant, the Respondent, the concerned Registrar, and ICANN of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding.
On May 19, 2000, the Clerk's Office contacted a first Panellist and requested that he act as Panellist in this case. On May 25,
2000, the Clerk's Office contacted Ariane Siegel, and requested that she act as Panellist in this case. On May 30, 2000, Ariane
Siegel accepted the request to act as Panellist in this case and filed the necessary Declaration of Independence and Impartiality.
On May 30, 2000, the Clerk's Office still had received no Response form from the Respondent. On May 30, 2000, the parties were
notified that Ariane Siegel had been appointed and that a decision was to be, save exceptional circumstances, handed down on June
18, 2000.
3. Factual Background
The Complainant is a non-profit religious corporation registered in the State of California under number 2079644. The Complainant
states that on March 24, 1993, it acquired the Domain Name Christusrex.org and since December 8, 1994 has published that web site.
The Complainant publishes religious art images and prayers on its web site. The Complainant indicates that in June of 1999, a web
site www.christusrex.com was selling religious art reproductions. Although the Complainant states that it has owned the trademark
Christusrex since 1993, no evidence of trademark ownership was put forward. The Respondent is the Domain Name Holder of the Domain
Name in question. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive web page.
The Respondent has not responded to the complaint and has presented no evidence to this dispute resolution process.
4. Parties' Contentions
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has utilized the Domain Name in order to target and confuse visitors to the Christusrex.org
web site who were mistakenly drawn to the .com web site. The Complainant suggests that the Respondent is attempting to leverage
the established position that Christusrex.org has on the Internet. The Complainant suggests that the Respondent has acted in bad
faith given the established position of the Complainant and its Christusrex.org web site and the Domain Name was being used to confuse
and target visitors of the Christusrex.org web site.
The Complainant states that it is in the process of securing private financing for its future expansion plans. The Complainant further
states that it needs to secure ownership of the Domain Name in order to obtain private financing.
As indicated above, the Respondent has not contested the allegation of the Complainant and has submitted no evidence.
5. Discussion and Findings
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("ICANN POLICY") sets out the terms and condition between a domain name registrant
and a third party in connection with a dispute over registration and use of an Internet domain name.
Paragraph 4a. of the ICANN POLICY places the burden on a Complainant to prove all of the following three factual elements: (i) the
Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights,
and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and (iii) the Respondent has Registered
and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and has offered no defence to the allegations by the Complainant. Paragraph
14 of the ICANN RULES allow a Panel to draw such inference as it considers appropriate from a Party's failure to comply with any
provision of, or requirement under the Rules.
(i) Similarity between Domain Name and Trademark or Service Mark
The Domain Name Christusrex.com is confusingly similar to the Domain Name Christusrex.org. The Complainant has shown registration
and use of the words Christusrex in association with a web site. The Complainant has stated that it acquired the Domain Name Christusrex.org
on March 24, 1993 and has published that web site since December 8, 1994. The Complainant has stated that Christusrex has been the
trademark of Christus Rex, Inc. since 1993, but has not provided any evidence of trademark ownership. Although the existence of
the Christusrex.org Domain Name suggests there has been use of the words Christusrex by the Complainant, there is little evidence
to consider the extent of rights to use those words by the Complainant. Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process is restricted
strictly to the owners of a trademark or service mark is unsettled. The words of Paragraph 4a. of the ICANN POLICY suggest that
only holders of a trademark or service mark can assert their rights to a Domain Name as complainants. However, the words of Paragraph
4c. of the ICANN POLICY, which allow a Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name by showing that
they have been commonly known by a domain name, even if they have acquired no trademark or service mark rights. In effect, Paragraph
4c. of the ICANN POLICY allows a non-trademark or service mark holder to trump the rights of a trademark or service mark holder to
a particular domain name. While an argument can be led that parties establishing prior or first use of a name should be entitled
to the benefit of the ICANN process, this has not been conclusively determined and the Complainant has failed to present strong arguments
to this effect or any evidence regarding its unique use or entitlement to the words Christusrex. It is beyond the scope of this
Panels' authority to deal with these issues on its own.
(ii) Respondent's Rights or Legitimate Interests in Domain Name
Paragraph 4c. of the ICANN POLICY provides that a Registrant may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name
by proving any of the following:
1. before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding
to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
2. you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired
no trademark or service mark rights; or
3. you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly
divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Based on the wording of Paragraph 4a. of the ICANN POLICY, the Complainant, has the burden of proving that the Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name. However, the wording of Paragraph 4c. brings confusion to the manner in which
a Complainant can prove this particular factual element. The Paragraph suggests that a Registrant may demonstrate its rights or
legitimate interests to the Domain Name by raising a number of defences. This provision appears to shift the analysis away from
the facts that a Complainant must prove to succeed in a claim and towards the ways a Respondent can defend itself. This apparent
shifting of the burden should be addressed.
In a case where a Respondent has failed to lead any evidence or participate in a dispute, the Panel must infer that the Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. To find otherwise would allow a Respondent to defeat a claim
and circumvent the process simply by refusing to participate in the proceedings thereby providing a Panel with no basis upon which
to conclude that a Respondent has no legitimate rights or Interest in the Domain Name.
The Complainant in this case states that the Domain Name was acquired by the Respondent on August 26, 1998 and was used to sell religious
art reproductions. The Complainant suggests, that given the unique nature of the Christusrex name on the Internet, the Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the contested Domain Name.
There is, at this time, no evidence pertaining to the actual use of the Domain Name.
Since the Respondent has not contested the allegation of the Complainant, the Panel must infer that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name.
(iii) Bad Faith Registration and Use of Domain Name
Paragraph 4b. of the ICANN POLICY states that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular
but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad
faith:
1. circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting
or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to
a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to
the domain name; or
2. you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in
a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
3. you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
4. by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or
other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation,
or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The Complainant suggests that in June of 1999 it was informed of the existence of a web site under the contested Domain Name that
was offering religious art reproduction for sale and apparently confusing individuals attempting to visit the complainant's web site.
However, no evidence has been offered to this effect. The Complainant has failed to prove any registration or use of the Domain
Name in bad faith.
6. Conclusions
This Panel's ability to make an order in favour of a Complainant is limited by the words of Paragraph 4a.of the ICANN POLICY which
requires that a Complainant prove three specific factual elements. The restrictive nature of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process
and the heavy burden imposed on complainants encourages parties to attempt to reach a settlement of their own in a dispute. The
Complainant in this case has led limited evidence with respect to its own rights to the words Christusrex. Furthermore, the Complainant
has failed to demonstrate any bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name by the Respondent. On this basis, the Complainant's
request for a transfer must be denied.
7. Additional Matters
On June 16, the provider's Clerk received the decision in this case. At that time, the Clerk realized an error may have occurred
pertaining to information sent to the Panel regarding the status of the web page on April 27, 2000.
Although the Clerk had told the Panel that on April 27th, 2000, the Domain Name resolved to an inactive web page, it was concerned
that this information could be incorrect. Since the status of the web page, and its contents on April 27, 2000 could have a bearing
both on the Panel's substantive analysis of issues in this case and on whether the provider had properly complied with procedural
requirements pertaining to notice set out in Clause 2(a)(ii) of the ICANN RULES, the provider sought the Panel's assistance in determining
the following issues:
1. Can the provider introduce copies of the contents of the April 27, 2000 web page to the Panel to be used as evidence in this case?
2. Was the web page on April 27, 2000 an active or inactive web page?
3. If the web page was active, did the provider comply with notice requirement specified in the ICAN RULES.
A discussion of these issues is outlined below:
(i) Provider's Ability to Introduce Evidence in a Case
Pursuant to paragraph 2(a)(ii) of the ICANN RULES, a provider has the obligation to consult the web page of the domain name in a
dispute to identify all the email addresses to which the official notification of commencement of administrative proceedings must
be sent. As a matter of course, the provider prints a copy of the web page upon receipt of any complaint form. This information
is kept in the provider's file and not distributed to the Panels. Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN policy clearly indicates that in any
administrative proceeding, it is the complainant that bears the burden of proving its case. It is the ICANN RULES, which outline
the procedural steps to be taken both by a complainant and a respondent in any dispute. Specifically, paragraph 3(b) of the ICANN
RULES indicates that a complainant is entitled to annex any documentary or other evidence in a dispute. Paragraph 5(b) of the ICANN
RULES states that a respondent can annex any documentary or other evidence upon which it relies in a dispute. Neither the ICANN
RULES, the ICANN POLICY nor the provider's Supplemental Rules expressly state that a provider is entitled to submit evidence in a
case which can be considered by a Panel in evaluating a dispute. To allow a provider to introduce evidence in a dispute, could call
into question the neutrality of the provider and jeopardise the fairness associated with a dispute resolution process in which the
burden of proof has clearly been identified to rest with the complainant. Based on this conclusion, the Panel rules that the actual
contents of the web page printed by the provider on April 27, 2000 are inadmissible. The contents of the April 27, 2000 web page,
brought to the Panel's attention by the provider after the completion of its decision on June 16, 2000 have no impact on the outcome
of this case.
(ii) Active or Inactive Web Page
The web site on April 27, 2000 included content posted by a party other than the registrar or an ISP. An active web page is referred
to in the ICANN RULES as "other than a generic page the provider concludes is maintained by a registrar or ISP for parking domain
names registered by multiple domain name holders". The word active is defined in the sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary as
"that is an action; that demands action; actually subsisting; the opposite of passive". The Panel takes the position that once the
party other than the registrar or ISP places any content on a web page (either words, symbols, information or even a link) that web
page becomes active.
(iii) Notice
The ICANN RULES indicate that it is the provider's responsibility to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual
notice to the respondent. The ICANN RULES enumerate a number of measures a provider can take to discharge that obligation. The
ICANN RULES indicate that the provider should have sent an email to all email addresses shown or email links on that web page. This
was not done. However, the objective of this requirement is to provide the parties with "actual" notice.
On June 16, 2000, the www.christusrex.com web site was not the same as on April 27, 2000 and was showing this message: "This page
has moved to a new location. If you are not automatically redirected in a few seconds, please click here." There was also a link
on the web page: "more information about the move." This link took browsers to www.catholex.com/moving.htm where the following message
was posted: "The reason for the move:
The administrator of the site at http://www.christusrex.org, Michael Olteanu, submitted a complaint to provider claiming rights to
the domain name, "christusrex.com", on the basis that he registered the domain, "christusrex.org" first. We consider his complaint
to be completely without merit, considering the extensive historical usage of the phrase "Christus Rex" in Christianity. "Christus
Rex" is Latin for "Christ, [the] King" and has been used in reference to Jesus Christ for nearly 2000 years. Therefore, "Christus
Rex" would clearly be classified as a descriptive term and any Christianity-related site would have an equal right to use the domain
name, "christusrex.com".
Despite the superior strength of our argument, we feel that engaging in such a petty conflict over a Christian domain name would
be bordering on religious hypocrisy. We have therefore made the conscientious decision not to take part in any public disputes of
this nature. We have come to an agreement with the complainant to donate the domain name to his organization in exchange for a tax-deductible
receipt.
Depending on the amount of time it takes for Network Solutions to transfer this domain name, it will eventually point to the same
web site as http://www.christusrex.org/.
Incidentally, we believe that http://www.christusrex.org/ is a very fine web site. If you are interested in Christian art, you should
definitely give it a visit."
Based on the information posted on the Christusrex.com web page, verified by the Panel to be accurate, the Panel is of the view the
respondent has received actual and proper notice of the dispute in accordance with the ICANN RULES.
8. Signature
Toronto, Canada
June 30, 2000
(s) Ariane Siegel
Presiding Panelist
|
