Tracyskingcrabshack.com

The timeline behind tracyskingcrabshack.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 Genuine Ventures, LLC v. Reecia Wilson Claim Number: FA1609001695667 PARTIES Complainant is Genuine Ventures, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott G. Warner of Garvey Schubert Barer, Washington, United States. Respondent is Reecia Wilson (“Respondent”), represented by Barbara Hagstrom of Simpson Tillinghast Sorensen & Sheehan, P.C., Alaska, United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <tracyskingcrabshack.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Kenneth L. Port as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 27, 2016; the Forum received payment on September 27, 2016. On September 28, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tracyskingcrabshack.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On September 30, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 24, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@tracyskingcrabshack.com. Also on September 30, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 24, 2016. A timely Additional Submission from Complainant was received and determined to be complete on October 28, 2016. On November 1, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant uses the TRACY’S KING CRAB SHACK mark in connection with its eatery for tourists around the world. Complainant has registered the TRACY’S KING CRAB SHACK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,006,150, filed Aug. 21, 2015, registered July 26, 2016), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark. See Compl., at Attached Annex 2. The <tracyskingcrabshack.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the terms of the domain name, and Complainant has never authorized Respondent, or anyone else, to use its mark. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent has failed to make any active use of the domain name, beyond parking the domain name with GoDaddy. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent has failed to make any active use of the domain name. Second, because Respondent is a direct competitor of Complainant and is located on the same wharf in the same Alaska city less than 1,600 feet apart, it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name with at least constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights therein. See Compl., at Attached Annex 17. Finally, Respondent, on August 12, 2016, changed the registrant information for the domain name to a privacy service, Domains by Proxy. See Compl., at Attached Annex 5. B. Respondent Respondent denies any and all allegations asserted in the Complaint. Respondent denies that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name because it considered making Complainant an offer to purchase the Tracy’s King Crab Shack brand or partner with Complainant. After filing the Complaint, Complainant informed Respondent that the brand is not for sale and Complainant is not interested in partnering. See Response, at Attached Annex 1. As such, Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 8, 2016. C. Additional Submissions Complainant asserts that Respondent provides no evidence to support its contention that it did not register the domain name in bad faith. Complainant confirms that, contrary to Respondent’s allegation that it had the intention to make Complainant an offer to purchase its business or partner with Complainant, Respondent never approached Complainant regarding a possible purchase of the brand or partnership prior to the initiation of this proceeding. See Compl., at Attached Annex 32. Further, Complainant maintains that Respondent’s registration of the domain name was not an innocent effort to partner with Complainant, but instead part of a plan to hijack Complainant’s brand and compete with Complainant in the exact location that had become synonymous with Complainant with an identical “crab shack” business. FINDINGS As the Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name should be transferred. DISCUSSION Respondent consents to transfer the <tracyskingcrabshack.com> disputed domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, GoDaddy.com, LLC placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <tracyskingcrabshack.com> disputed domain name. DECISION Given that the Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tracyskingcrabshack.com> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. Kenneth L. Port, Panelist Dated: November 3, 2016 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.