Intercristo.net

The timeline behind intercristo.net

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 CRISTA Ministries v. Texas International Property Associates, Inc. Claim Number: FA0705000985154 PARTIES Complainant is CRISTA Ministries (“Complainant”), represented by David Chen, of DWC Law Firm, P.S., 219 First Avenue South, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104. Respondent is Texas International Property Associates (“Respondent”), represented by Gary Wayne Tucker, of Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, P.O. Box 703431, Dallas, TX 75370. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <intercristo.net>, registered with Compana, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard DiSalle is Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 14, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 16, 2007. On May 25, 2007, Compana, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <intercristo.net> domain name is registered with Compana, LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, LLC 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 June 1, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 21, 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@intercristo.net by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 21, 2007. On June 27, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Richard DiSalle as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, CRISTA Ministries (“CRISTA”), is one of the largest Christian non-profit organizations in the United States. CRISTA operates various aspects of its services under different “ministries” or divisions, under assumed business names and associated trademarks. One of those ministries is Intercristo, which provides job information services primarily directed toward Christians. Respondent has registered a domain name identical to CRISTA’s federally registered trademark, INTERCRISTO, and is parking the domain name with a third party to host sponsored links that compete directly with CRISTA services. CRISTA has never provided permission to Respondent, or otherwise authorized Respondent, to register a domain name containing CRISTA’s trademark, and has not provided Respondent with any permission to use or display CRISTA’s trademark INTERCRISTO. CRISTA has owned its federal trademark registration for the mark INTERCRISTO and its domain name <intercristo.com>, since prior to the creation of Respondent’s offending domain name. The domain name <intercristo.net> is identical to CRISTA’s trademark INTERCRISTO (other than the generic top level domain identifier .net). CRISTA is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,106,824 (the “Registration”) for the mark INTERCRISTO. CRISTA acquired the mark, including the Registration, in February of 1985 through an assignment and transfer to CRISTA of all right, title and interest in and to the mark and Registration. Respondent has not, before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, engaged in 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. Instead, Respondent has used the domain name <intercristo.net> incorporating Complainant’s inherently distinctive trademark, INTERCRISTO, to earn revenue from sponsored links (discussed further, infra) that advertise services that compete directly with Complainant’s job information services. Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s use is purely commercial as demonstrated by the revenue it earns from knowingly partnering with Hitfarm to provide the competing sponsored links. Respondent’s sponsored links from Hitfarm include advertisements for directly competing services, as evidenced by the statements at Respondent’s website, “Welcome to intercristo.net… For resources and information on Christian job and Christian jobs ministry [sic].” Furthermore, the sponsored links on Respondent’s website include, for example, the following: <churchjobs.net>, <christianjobs.com>, <christianteachingjobs.com>. B. Respondent Respondent asserts that it unilaterally consents to having the <intercristo.net> domain name transferred to Complainant. Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <intercristo.net> domain name and requests an “immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements.” 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. The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has admitted that it does not have an interest in retaining the disputed domain name registration, the Panel shall forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See Mattel, Inc. v. Yoon, FA 967843 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (deciding not to analyze the elements of the Policy where the respondent did not contest the complainant’s remedy for transfer of the disputed domain name); see also Tex. Med. Ctr. v. Spinder, 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 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Secure Whois Info. Serv., FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2007) (“In light of Respondent’s request that the Panel enter an order transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant without findings of fact on the elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and the lack of any objection thereto, the Panel declines to set forth or address the Parties’ contentions.”). DECISION Accordingly, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. It is Ordered that the <intercristo.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard DiSalle, Panelist Dated: July 11, 2007 NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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