National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

CMM, LLC v. mynet2.com c/o David Seckinger

Claim Number: FA0410000340359

PARTIES

Complainant is CMM, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer L. Kovalcik, of Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800, Louisville, KY 40202.  Respondent is mynet2.com c/o David Seckinger (“Respondent”), 127 Nashua Drive, Clarksville, IN 47129.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <cashtyme.com>, registered with R&K Globalbusinessservices, Inc. d/b/a 000Domains.com.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he 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.

Timothy D. O’Leary as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 7, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 12, 2004.

On October 8, 2004, R&K Globalbusinessservices,Inc. d/b/a 000Domains.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <cashtyme.com> is registered with R&K Globalbusinessservices,Inc. d/b/a 000Domains.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  R&K Globalbusinessservices,Inc. d/b/a 000Domains.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the R&K Globalbusinessservices,Inc. d/b/a 000Domains.com 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 October 18, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of November 8, 2004 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@cashtyme.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 8, 2004.

A timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant and was determined to be complete on November 15, 2004.

On November 22, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Timothy D. O’Leary as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Respondent asserts that it registered the <cashtyme.com> domain name at Complainant’s request and is holding the domain name as security for a debt owed to Respondent for work performed for Complainant. 

Complainant denies in its Additional Submission that Respondent has any legitimate claim against it for the reason that there was no agreement with Respondent for it to register this domain name or for any other service.

Thus, the question of who owns the domain name is not the issue.  The issue is whether there was a contractual agreement as asserted by Respondent and, if so, whether it is appropriate for Respondent to hold this domain name as security for that debt.

DECISION

I find that the dispute involves contractual issues.  The dispute is not over who is entitled to the domain name.  Respondent agrees that Complainant is entitled to it.  The only issues are whether Complainant owes Respondent money for registering and holding this domain name for Complainant and whether holding the domain name as security is appropriate.  Both questions are contractual agreement issues.

I further find that these contractual issues are outside the scope of the Policy and inappropriate for decision by this panel.  See Latent Tech. Group, Inc. v. Fritchie, FA 95285 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 1, 2000) (dispute concerning employee’s registration of domain name in his own name and subsequent refusal to transfer it to employer raises issues of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that are more appropriately decided in court, not before a UDRP Panel); see also Thread.com, LLC v. Poploff, D2000-1470 (WIPO Jan. 5, 2001) (refusing to transfer the domain name and stating that the ICANN Policy does not apply because attempting “to shoehorn what is essentially a business dispute between former partners into a proceeding to adjudicate cybersquatting is, at its core, misguided, if not a misuse of the Policy”).

Accordingly, it is ordered that the Complaint is dismissed.

Timothy D. O’Leary , Panelist

Dated: December 6, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1584.html