The acquisition of a business due to bankruptcy is a straightforward process: a court order describes the assets that must be transferred via the liquidation.
In the case of InlandBoatClub.com the business folded and two years ago the assets’ transfer to the new owner was agreed upon. Except that the domain wasn’t transferred. Not smartly, the new business owner filed a UDRP to get the domain.
The anticipated result was not as expected, however. The Respondent denied the Complainant’s allegations, pushing back against their plan to get the domain via the UDRP process.
At that point, the sole panelist at the Forum noted that the Complainant’s claim of having established common law rights in the brand mark wasn’t proven. He pointed the Complainant to take their case to the courts as a more appropriate venue for handling a contractual breach.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain InlandBoatClub.com.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Charles Westover v. Erik Blomquist / Alpine Hitch
Claim Number: FA2502002142051
PARTIES
Complainant is Charles Westover (“Complainant”), represented by Natassja Westover, Utah, USA. Respondent is Erik Blomquist / Alpine Hitch (“Respondent”), represented by Justin Heideman of Law Firm of Heideman & Associates, Utah, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is inlandboatclub.com, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 25, 2025. Forum received payment on February 25, 2025.
On February 25, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the inlandboatclub.com domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 February 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 2025 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@inlandboatclub.com. Also on February 27, 2025, 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 April 14, 2025.
On April 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that 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, Charles Westover, owns and has rights to the “Inland Boat Club” trademark through common law trademark rights, acquired as part of the purchase of the business out of bankruptcy. Additionally, a trademark application has been submitted and is pending review with the USPTO. Complainant has continuously used the “Inland Boat Club” name in commerce, inheriting the goodwill and brand recognition established by the business prior to the bankruptcy sale.
The inlandboatclub.com domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark “Inland Boat Club.”
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name, as a former owner with no current affiliation. There is no evidence that Respondent has been personally or professionally recognized as “Inland Boat Club” in any capacity since the business was lawfully transferred to Complainant.
By an agreement dated August 30, 2023, Respondent agreed to sell to Complainant all ownership rights in and to the domain name inlandboatclub.com. Respondent was paid for the domain name but did not transfer it.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent is deliberately obstructing Complainant’s ability to use the domain name and related technology, despite no longer having any legitimate business interest in “Inland Boat Club.”
B. Respondent
Respondent denies Complainant’s allegations.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling him to relief.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that he acquired all assets, goodwill, and business rights associated with “Inland Boat Club” through a bankruptcy sale in 2023, including the exclusive right to use the name in commerce.
Although the inlandboatclub.com domain name is identical to “Inland Boat Club” (disregarding the inconsequential “.com” gTLD), Complainant has not provided any evidence that, through continuous use in commerce, “Inland Boat Club” has become a common law trademark. A pending application to register a mark does not give rise to trademark rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not shown that he has trademark rights in “Inland Boat Club”.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since Respondent is a former owner of the business acquired by Complainant, Respondent no longer has rights or legitimate interests in the inlandboatclub.com domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: “the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
The inlandboatclub.com domain name was registered on April 23, 2018. Complainant acknowledges that Respondent had a legitimate business interest in the domain name prior to the transfer of the business to Complainant in 2023. Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the domain name was not registered in bad faith.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
The contractual issues between the parties are better suited for resolution in a court of competent jurisdiction.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the inlandboatclub.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2025
