Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2016-0879 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, June 23, 2016 (case GBI Prosperities Pty Ltd., Dr Grow It All Sales Pty Ltd. v. Private Registration / Dave Lovegrove, Real Estate Educational Programmes)
| Resolution Date | June 23, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Complaint denied |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
The Complainants are GBI Prosperities Pty Ltd. (the “First Complainant”) and Dr Grow It All Sales Pty Ltd. (the “Second Complainant”) of Eumundi, Queensland, Australia, represented by Rouse Lawyers, Australia.
The Respondent is Private Registration of Sydney South, New South Wales, Australia / Dave Lovegrove, Real Estate Educational Programmes of Noosaville, Queensland, Australia, represented by Steven Rinehart, United States of America (“United States”).
The disputed domain names [doctorgrowitall.com] and [drgrowitall.com] are registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 1, 2016. On May 2, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 4, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center received informal email communications from the Respondent on May 14, 2016, and May 17, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 17, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2016. The Response was filed with the Center on June 3, 2016.
The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
Both disputed domain names were registered on May 28, 2010. It is not in dispute between the Parties that both disputed domain names were registered by the Second Respondent (hereafter the “Respondent”).[1 ] Also on May 28, 2010, the name “Dr Grow It All” was registered as a business name by the Respondent’s wife.
According to the Complainants, the business name was registered in connection with a plan to commercialise an organic liquid fertiliser product. This business was, or was to be, conducted by a Mr. Hood and the Respondent. (Mr. Hood is now a director of both Complainants). This version of events is disputed by the Respondent, who claims that the Dr Grow It All business was unrelated to his dealings with Mr. Hood and the latter’s associates.
On October 11, 2010, two companies were incorporated. One company was Dadcav Pty Ltd. The second company was the Second Complainant. As noted above, Mr. Hood is now the sole director of the Second Complainant, but the Respondent was formerly a director also. Both Mr. Hood and the Respondent were directors of Dadcav Pty Ltd.
On October 13, 2010, Dadcav Pty Ltd was registered as jointly carrying on the business of Dr Grow It All with the Respondent’s wife. However, on November 23, 2010, the business name was transferred to the Second Complainant so that the Second Complainant apparently became solely carrying on the business.
On December 12, 2011, the First Complainant was incorporated. Mr. Hood and his wife are, and have been, the only directors of the First Complainant. Between them Mr. Hood and his wife own 50,002 shares in the First Complainant. The Respondent and his wife own between them two shares in the First Complainant.
On December 12, 2012, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial