Betcarib.com

The timeline behind betcarib.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION CaribSports International Ltd. v. William Davis Claim Number: FA0208000117697 PARTIES Complainant is Sports International Ltd., Belize City, BELIZE (“Complainant”). Respondent is William Davis, St. John's, ANTIGUA (“Respondent”) represented by Daniel Press, of Chung & Press, PC. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <betcarib.com>, registered with Network Solutions, 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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on August 2, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 8, 2002. On August 7, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <betcarib.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 August 12, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 3, 2002 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@betcarib.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 3, 2002. On September 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, CaribSports International, Ltd., contends that the disputed domain name may be misinterpreted as pertaining to a domain name owned by Complainant—<betcarib.com>. Complainant contends that the domain name may be used by Respondent to attract Complainant’s customers and that it has been registered for the sole purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Complainant claims to have rights in the mark “C@RIB.” B. Respondent Respondent, William Davis, contends the Complaint should be dismissed summarily as Complainant has offered no evidence to support its allegations. Further, Respondent asserts that its domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the mark “C@RIB.” Respondent claims that the term “carib” is short for “Caribbean” and it is a geographically descriptive term and no secondary meaning has been established by Complainant. FINDINGS Because the Complaint contains no evidence to support its bare, conclusory allegations, it must be dismissed. DISCUSSION 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. I find it unnecessary to consider these elements, as Complainant has come forward with no evidence whatsoever to support its allegations. The failure to provide any documentary evidence in support of one’s case justifies the dismissal of a complaint. E.g., Online Resources v. On-Line Resources, No. D2001-0257 (WIPO May 15, 2001); Singh v. McCarthy, No. AF-0839 (eRes July 3, 2001); DECISION The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: September 23, 2002 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.