NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Life Is Now, Inc. v. Gregory RicksClaim Number: FA1403001546794

PARTIESComplainant is Life Is Now, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen J. Thomas of Thomas Business Law Group, P.C., California, USA. Respondent is Gregory Ricks (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <justbelieve.com>, registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd.

PANELThe 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.

Mark McCormick as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORYComplainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 4, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 5, 2014.

On March 6, 2014, Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <justbelieve.com> domain name is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. 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 March 11, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 31, 2014 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@justbelieve.com. Also on March 11, 2014, 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 March 17, 2014.

On March 24, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mark McCormick as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHTComplainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONSA. Complainant

1. Complainant has rights in the JUST BELIEVE mark.a. Complainant’s company deals in the business of

professional and personal coaching and has used the JUST BELIEVE mark since 2003.

b. Complainant owns a registration for the JUST BELIEVE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,783,336 filed January 25, 2009, registered May 4, 2010).

c. Respondent’s <justbelieve.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUST BELIEVE mark.

2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <justbelieve.com> domain name.

a. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to one of four different homepages with different domain names.

3. Respondent registered and is using the <justbelieve.com> domain name in bad faith.

a. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its resolving websites for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.

b. Respondent uses Complainant’s JUST BELIEVE mark as part of the webpage name.

B. Respondent1. Respondent registered the <justbelieve.com> domain

name on June 28, 2000, more than two years prior to Complainant’s first use of the JUST BELIEVE mark.

2. Respondent moved the <justbelieve.com> domain name to a different registrar and started forwarding Internet traffic from the previous domain name location to other websites that incorporated the JUST BELIEVE mark in their business.

3. Respondent asserts that Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

FINDINGSComplainant has established the facts alleged in paragraphs 1(a)

through 1(c) of its contentions. Complainant has not contended that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as required by Policy ¶4(c)(ii). This prevents a panel finding on the issue in paragraph 2 of his contentions. Regarding paragraph 3 in Complainant’s contentions, the panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 20, 2000, more than two years before Complainant’s first use of its JUST BELIEVE mark.

DISCUSSIONParagraph 15(a) of 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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)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 determines that Complainant cannot prove the three elements of its claim as required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy because it cannot prove that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. A respondent does not act in bad faith when the record establishes that the respondent registered the domain name prior to the complainant’s acquisition of any rights in the mark. See Interep Nat’l Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174 (WIPO May 26, 2000).

Because the undisputed record demonstrate Respondent’s prior right in the mark at the time of its registration, Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent registered and is using the <justbelieve.com> domain name in bad faith. Because of Complainant’s failure to meet its burden of proof, Complainant’s prayer for relief must be denied.

Respondent asserts Complainant is guilty of reverse domain name highjacking. That contention requires that Respondent prove Complainant knew of Respondent’s prior superior right in the domain name accompanied by evidence of harassment or similar conduct by Complainant. See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002). Because Complainant’s own evidence contains evidence of Respondent’s prior right in the JUST BELIEVE mark, Complainant may simply have been unaware of the significance of that circumstance. Complainant made no effort to conceal it, and the record contains no evidence of harassment or similar conduct by Complainant. Respondent has failed to prove his claim of reverse domain name highjacking.

DECISIONBecause Complainant has not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. Respondent’s claim of reverse name highjacking is also DENIED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <justbelieve.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

Mark McCormick, PanelistDated: April 7, 2014