Josadams.com

The timeline behind josadams.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Richard Simon Jocelyn Peter Adams a/k/a Jos Adams v. Truth About Jos Claim Number: FA0701000907564 PARTIES Complainant is Richard Simon Jocelyn Peter Adams a/k/a Jos Adams (“Complainant”), represented by Linda C. Dolan Esq., 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1401, Orlando, FL 32802. Respondent is Truth About Jos (“Respondent”), represented by M. Suzanne Green, 307 NW 3rd Street, Ocala, FL 34471. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <josadams.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she 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. Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 31, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 1, 2007. On January 31, 2007, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <josadams.com> domain name 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 February 8, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 28, 2007 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@josadams.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 28, 2007. On March 7, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant Richard Simon Jocelyn Peter Adams, a/k/a Jos Adams, contends that it has used his name in connection with home design and building since March 2002. Recently, Complainant filed for a service mark in International Class 37 for the mark JOS ADAMS. However, Complainant has been using his name as a service mark since he began his home design and building career. Complainant promotes his homebuilding endorsements through his Internet website, through feature articles in newspapers, trade journals, and by word of mouth referrals by satisfied customers. Complainant spent over ten thousand dollars and hundreds of hours to promote his name for his home design and construction services. As a result of such promotion, and because of his reputation for high quality services, Complainant has achieved recognition in the marketplace, both on the Internet and elsewhere. Complainant contends that the domain name at dispute is identical to Complainant’s name and to the Mark for which Complainant has applied. According to Complainant Respondent is using the Domain Name to divert people who are seeking Complainant in order to disrupt his business, and to tarnish his reputation. Since the Mark was in use for homebuilding services since at least 2002, which is prior to Respondent's registration of the Domain Name in 2005, and since Respondent had reason to know of its use, and since Respondent does not use the Domain name in conjunction with his business, Respondent has no legitimate rights in the Domain Name. Complainant finally contends that Respondent obtained the Domain Name not for the purpose of using it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but to tarnish Complainant and the Mark. Since Respondent presumably did not provide a telephone number in his application and prevented Complainant from using his own name and service mark in a corresponding domain name, Respondent has registered and is using the domain in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent stated in his Response amongst others the following: Respondent admits that the Complaint included an attachment which demonstrates that the Complainant recently filed a service mark application for the mark JOS ADAMS. Complainant filed for this service mark well after Respondent registered the name at issue. However, and on that ground alone, Respondent has agreed to transfer the domain name at issue to the Complainant and has repeatedly communicated this offer to Complainant’s counsel. A Stay was even executed by the undersigned, but never filed by Complainant, hence the necessity of this response … Respondent … admits that Complainant attached an application showing that he filed for the mark JOS ADAMS to his Complaint and on that ground alone Respondent has repeatedly agreed to transfer the domain name at issue. All other allegations are denied. … The Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Panel find that Complainant has filed an application for the mark JOS MARK and, on that ground alone, transfer the domain name to Complainant. FINDINGS Respondent has submitted a Response in which he consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. 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. Respondent Agrees to Transfer the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant In its Response, Respondent indicates that it is willing to transfer the <josadams.com> domain name to Complainant. Respondent admits that Complainant has filed a service mark application for the JOSADAMS mark and on that ground alone, agrees to transfer the disputed domain name. Respondent claims that it has “repeatedly” offered to transfer the disputed domain name and even executed a stay of this decision but that Complainant never filed it. It appears that Respondent is agreeing to transfer the disputed domain name registration to Complainant and does not wish to retain it. The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Tex. Med. Ctr. v. Spindler, FA 886496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (foregoing the traditional Policy analysis where the respondent stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainant); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names”). DECISION Respondent has requested that the Administrative Panel transfer the domain name to Complainant, and, accordingly, it is Ordered that the <josadams.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dr. Reinhard Schanda, Panelist Dated: March 20, 2007 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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