By: www.DefendMyDomain.com

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Nissan of Fort Worth c/o Frank Figueredo, Jr. v. Thornhill Auto Group FA1270184 (Nat. Arb Forum, August 6, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.nissanoffortworth.com. Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.

Normally, under most domain disputes, a Panel reviews the three elements required under the Policy 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 opinion was short and did not address the merits of the dispute. Instead the dispute was DENIED and dismissed as being outside the scope of the UDRP Policy. The Facts of the case according to Complainant included (1) Complainant purchased the Nissan Dealership in Forth Worth, Texas from Respondent on October 1, 2008; (2) In the purchase agreement Respondent agreed to transfer all intellectual property and contract rights associated with the dealership to Complainant; and (3) Respondent had not turned over the domain.

“The Panel finds that this is a contractual issue that falls outside the scope of review under the UDRP and that such an issue must be resolved in a Court of competent jurisdiction.” The Panel cited several prior cases which held the same proposition. See Everingham Bros. Bait Co. v. Contigo Visual, FA 440219 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 27, 2005); Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 844252 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2007); Frazier Winery LLC v. Hernandez, FA 841081 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2006).