WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dr. Arlen Lyle Salte, Break Forth Ministries Society v. Power to Change Case No. D2019-1806 1. The Parties

The Complainants are Dr. Arlen Lyle Salte, Canada, and Break Forth Ministries Society, Canada, self-represented.

The Respondent is Power to Change, Canada, represented by Miller Thomson, LLP, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 27, 2019. On July 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 31, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 6, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 6, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2019. Upon request of the Respondent the due date for Response was extended to September 5, 2019, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(b). The due date for Response was further extended to September 13, 2019, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(e). The Response was filed with the Center on September 13, 2019.

On September 13, 2019, the Complainant submitted a supplemental filing in reply to the Response.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 2019. 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. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Dr. Arlen Lyle Salte is the founder and executive director of the Complainant, Breakforth Ministries Society since its inception on May 1, 1977.

The Complainants allegedly own a United States of America (“U.S.”) Trademark registration for BREAK FORTH MINISTRIES under Registration No. 2,856,412 dated June 22, 2004, and a Canadian Trademark registration for BREAK FORTH under Registration No. TMA 959,207 dated January 4, 2017 (“the BREAK FORTH Trademarks”).1

The Complainants have used the BREAK FORTH Trademarks in association with hosting workshops, concerts, trips, conferences, and services, and selling songbooks, recordings, podcasts, educational CDs and DVDS all in connection with the Christian religion and faith.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 6, 2002 by the Complainants. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name in association with educational services, including conferences, workshops, and retreats with respect to the Christian religion. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants

The Complainant, Dr. Arlen Salte, owns two trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 of this Decision for BREAK FORTH MINISTRIES (U.S. Registration No. 2,856,412) and BREAK FORTH (Canadian Registration No. TMA 959,207). The Complainant, Break Forth Ministries Society is the exclusive licensee to use the BREAK FORTH Trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainants’ BREAK FORTH Trademark in its entirety. The Complainants’ contend that the addition of the geographical term “Canada” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainants’ registered BREAK FORTH Trademarks, and is therefore confusingly similar.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent is hijacking the disputed domain name and is redirecting it to its own religious education conferences website. This redirection is misleading thousands of Internet users seeking the Complainants’ website. The redirection of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is not a bona fide offering of goods and services and therefore not evidence of a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has acquired and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainants contend that the Respondent has hijacked the disputed domain name and has redirected the disputed domain name to the Respondent’s website for purposes of trading on the goodwill of the Complainants for monetary gain. B. Respondents

The Respondent denies the allegations in the Complaint. The Respondent claims that the Complainants do not lawfully own the two BREAK FORTH Tradema