Company filed and dismissed two lawsuits against domain name before filing UDRP.
Life is Now, Inc. has filed a UDRP against the domain name JustBelieve.com.
The company promotes coaching by David Neagle, whose website describes him as “Master Income Acceleration Mentor for Entrepreneurs & Corporate Professionals”. It has a registered trademark for “Just Believe” and claims first use in commerce of 2003.
The domain name is owned by Greg Ricks, who has owned the domain name since 2000. This is the second case Ricks has faced in the past week on a domain name he’s owned for over a decade. His Qualify.com domain name is also under attack.
Life is Now has already sued twice to try to get the JustBelieve.com domain name. It sued two privacy services that have been listed for the domain name during 2012-2013, but later voluntarily dismissed the cases both times.
When the initial lawsuit was filed JustBelieve.com went to a parked page that predominately showed ads for basketball.
After the lawsuits were filed Ricks began forwarding the domain name to sites that had “JustBelieve” in them, either in the domain name or the subject matter of the pages. For example, it forwards to JustBelieveOnline.com and a page on Theme Forest that offers a “Just Believe” theme for churches.
The very short UDRP complaint (see PDF here) claims that forwarding JustBelieve.com to these others sites proves that the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the the domain name and that it was registered in bad faith.
On the contrary, it basically shows that “Just Believe” has many uses.
It seems that the complainant is a bit confused. Referring to the four sites JustBelieve.com forwards to, the complaint reads:
Each offending website has “justbelieve” as part of the domain name, and identifies themselves by using “just believe” as part of their webpage name. The “justbelieve.com” domain name and the “Just Believe” tags at the top of each of the websites demonstrate that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, possibly for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponorship, affiliate, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or comments.
Is the complainant confused as to who owns the four sites that are forwarded to? Does it think they are in cahoots with the domain owner? It’s not clear to me, but the law firm for the UDRP case (which is different from the previous lawsuits) also cc’d all four websites with the UDRP.