Gary Kompothecras v.
ProLawUSA
Claim Number: FA1006001328818
PARTIES
Complainant is Gary Kompothecras (“Complainant”), represented by Nicole
Deese Newlon, of Shutts & Bowen LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <askgarysucks.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com,
Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving
as Panelist in this proceeding.
Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on June 8, 2010.
Complainant amended Complaint on June 8, 2010 to reflect the updated status of
ICANN’S rules and so as to list the Respondent’s name and contact information
as currently found in the Registrar’s WHOIS database.
On June 9, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <askgarysucks.com> domain name is
registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and
has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Policy”).
On June 16, 2010, the Forum
served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the
Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2010 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@askgarysucks.com. Also on June
16, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of
the email 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.
Respondent requested and Complainant consented to an allowance of
additional time to respond to the Complaint. The National Arbitration Forum,
based upon a finding of extenuating circumstances, granted an additional 20 days
within which to answer the Complaint. Thereafter, a timely Response was
received and determined to be complete on July
26, 2010.
On August 1, 2010, a timely Additional Submission was received, which
was in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.
On August 2, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name <askgarysucks.com> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant alleged as follows:
Complainant’s Complaint is based upon the Complainant’s trademarks ASK
GARY and 1-800-ASK-GARY (the “marks”) filed with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”).
Complainant’s USPTO registrations confirm its rights to the ASK GARY
trademarks.
Complainant has used and has continued to use the marks in
jurisdictions throughout the United States, since at least as early as 2003,
for numerous services related to counseling and the provision of advice regarding auto accidents
and personal injuries resulting from auto accidents. Complainant does not provide legal services,
but is a lawyer referral service registered with the Florida Bar.
Complainant’s use of the marks in national advertisements and promotion
of its services under the ASK GARY marks in several Internet forums has
developed and garnered goodwill.
Respondent’s <askgarysucks.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASK GARY marks, as it
contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, along with the addition of the
term “sucks” after it. This slight alteration to Complainant’s marks does not
render the disputed domain name distinct from Complainant’s marks.
Complainant states that Respondent has apparently been doing business
on the disputed website in a field at least comparable to Complainant’s lawyer
referral service for persons injured as a result of automobile accidents, in
that Respondent advertises legal services for those who have suffered personal
injuries as a result of automobile accidents.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights nor
legitimate interests in the ASK GARY marks, in that:
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the marks; and
Respondent has neither made use of, nor demonstrable preparations to
use, the domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services; and
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name; and
Respondent uses <askgarysucks.com>
to provide legal services in a transparent attempt to interfere with and
disparage Complainant’s lawyer referral service and its ASK GARY marks.
Complainant further states that Respondent registered the domain name
in an attempt to capitalize unfairly on the goodwill of Complainant’s well
known ASK GARY marks.
Complainant lastly states that Respondent is using the mark in bad
faith, in that Respondent used the domain name to operate a website through
which it sells legal services to those injured as a result of automobile
accidents, which is similar to the lawyer referral services offered by
Complainant and for which its ASK GARY marks are registered.
B. Respondent
Respondent alleged as follows:
Complainant, Gary Kompothecras, is not an attorney, but rather a
chiropractic physician licensed in
Upon information and belief, Complainant’s business practices consist
of the transmission of 1-800-ASK
Per Respondent’s Annex 3, Respondent’s representative is an attorney,
licensed to practice law in
Over the years, Mr. Neville has represented numerous persons who had
negative experiences with attorneys referred to them by Complainant’s 1-800-ASK
GARY referral service as well as persons who had negative experiences treating
at Complainant’s medical clinics. These negative experiences prompted Mr.
Neville to register the domain name <askgarysucks.com>
in the first place. His attention was
and always has been to create a discussion forum where persons could openly
share their experiences with Complainant’s referral services and clinics. Mr. Neville has declined offers to
participate in Complainant’s business ventures.
Respondent alleges that his disputed domain name is distinguishable
from Complainant’s marks. In support of
this contention, Respondent states that there is a long line of decisions which
specifically hold that the inclusion of the word “sucks” in the domain name
distinguishes the domain name from the trademark to the point where it cannot
be considered confusingly similar to the trademark.
Finally, Complainant has not presented any evidence of actual confusion
related to the Respondent’s <askgarysucks.com>
domain name and his trademarks.
C. Additional Submission
Complainant alleged as follows:
Respondent’s Response ignores the requisite legal arguments, and in
lieu thereof, attempts to disparage and insult the 1-800-ASK-
Respondent seeks to be excused from his misconduct by what he argues
were his good faith intentions for use of the domain name, even though he never
used the domain name for his stated purpose.
Respondent disclaims all knowledge and responsibility for having linked
the domain name to the web page for his law firm.
Factors which impact an analysis of whether Respondent’s domain name is
confusingly similar are as follows:
Respondent used the disputed domain name for his law firm which
specializes in representing those injured in automobile, motorcycle and
pedestrian accidents, and Complainant is a lawyer and doctor referral service.
Both Respondent’s law firm and the 1-800-ASK
Complainant alleges that cases cited by Respondent are irrelevant as
most of them involved the use of a protest or complaint website. That is not
the case in this situation, as the disputed domain name is being used by
Respondent for his law firm, which offers competing services to those provided
by Complainant. In contrast to the cases cited by Respondent, there have been
many ICANN decisions that have found domain names that combine a trademark with
the word “sucks” to be confusingly similar to the trademark.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not gain any rights or
legitimate interests in the name, either by passively holding the name or by
his unmanifested intentions to create a protest site or site to log consumer
complaints.
Regarding whether Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad
faith, Complainant alleges that it is highly plausible that Complainant’s
inquiry into the ownership of the name activated a parked name and somehow
linked this domain name to the Respondent’s law firm website. Complainant
surmises that the purpose of the registration was to advertise Respondent’s
competing services and to disparage the Complainant.
Complainant alleges that Respondent, without rights to the mark ASK
Complainant lastly alleges, in its Additional Submission, that the
attacks levied against the Complainant and 1-800-ASK GARY, as evidenced both by
the four corners of the Response and the attachments, including Annexes 4, 5,
6, 9, 10, 11 and 12, are unnecessary, unwarranted and inappropriate. The
Complainant is a chiropractor who operates a large medical practice, and is, as
well, a businessman and a philanthropist. Complainant states that it has met
its burden of proof and, therefore, the disputed domain name should be transferred
to Complainant.
FINDINGS
Respondent’s domain name <askgarysucks.com> is not
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or servicemark in which the
Complainant has rights. As a unanimous finding
of all three elements is required, the Panel has declined to analyze ¶ 4(a)(ii) and ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Therefore, Respondent
is not ordered to transfer the mark
to Complainant.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
Complainant registered the mark 1-800-ASK
GARY in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( “USPTO”)
at U.S Trademark Reg. No. 3,063,452 and registered the mark ASK GARY in the
USPTO at U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,195,747.While it is clear that Complainant
has some rights in these registered marks, the Panel must ascertain the extent
of those rights; that is, whether those rights have been abridged or infringed
upon by the use of an identical or confusingly similar name. Here, Respondent, ProLawUSA, is persuasive in
its argument that the addition of the word “sucks” to Complainant’s trademark
negates a finding that consumers would be confused as to the sponsorship of the
mark. This lack of confusion would be particularly marked in light of
Complainant’s widespread and longstanding television and outdoor advertising campaigns, as
well as the June 2010 re-naming rights of
The ASK GARY marks were further thrust into
the public eye by the Florida Bar’s 2007 crack-down on scores of personal
injury attorneys who allegedly benefitted from the 1-800-ASK-GARY referral
service, in accordance with Respondent’s Annexes 4-6.
Furthermore, the ASK GARY marks were
highlighted as being in the center of an April 2010 verified class action
complaint against attorneys who benefitted from the 1-800–ASK-GARY referral
system.
In light of this firestorm of both
self-promotion and being thrust into the public eye as newsworthy events, the
1-800-ASK-GARY marks became the object of some public scorn, deserved or not,
such as to create fertile ground for the generation of a protest site to
develop.
With regard to the narrow issue of confusing
similarity, the Panel is persuaded that a consumer would not be confused as to
the affiliation of the well known mark ASK GARY, if the mark was appended by
the protest cry of “sucks.” Further, Complainant did not include any instances
of actual consumer confusion, either in its original Complaint, or in its
Additional Submission. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <askgarysucks.com> domain name is
not confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASK
Likewise, in Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Parisi, D2000-1015 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2001),
the panel held that “common sense and a reading of the plain language of the
Policy support the view that a domain name combining a trademark with the word
“sucks” or other language clearly indicates that the domain name is not
affiliated with the trademark owner.”
Thus, the Parisi panel found
the respondent’s <lockheedmartinsucks.com> and <lockheedsucks.com>
domain names could not be considered confusingly similar to the complainant’s
LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
As the Panel has concluded that Complainant
has not satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(i) because it has
failed to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks, the Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of
the Policy. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because
the Complainant must prove all three elements under the policy, the
complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into
the remaining element (sic) unnecessary); see
also Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2006) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights
or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not
satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(i)).
DECISION
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN
Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <askgarysucks.com> domain name NOT BE TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Carol M. Stoner, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2010
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home
Page
National
Arbitration Forum