Mr. Clive Davis c/o J Records, LLC v.
Michael Spicer c/o Spicer Industries
Claim Number: FA0211000133761
PARTIES
Complainant
is Clive Davis c/o J Records, LLC,
New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Brad D. Rose, of Pryor
Cashman Sherman & Flynn, LLP.
Respondent is Michael Spicer of
Spicer Industries, Burnsville, MN (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <clivedavis.com>,
< clivedavis.net> and <clivedavis.org> registered with
Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on November 20, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 20, 2002.
On
November 20, 2002, Go Daddy Software,
Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <clivedavis.com>,
<clivedavis.net> and <clivedavis.org> are registered
with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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
November 21, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of December 11, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@clivedavis.com, postmaster@clivedavis.net,
and postmaster@clivedavis.org by
e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
December 27, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K.
McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the 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.” Therefore, the Panel may
issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the
ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1.
Respondent’s
<clivedavis.com>,
<clivedavis.net>, <clivedavis.org> domain names
are identical to Complainant’s CLIVE
DAVIS mark.
2.
Respondent
does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the <clivedavis.com>, <clivedavis.net>,
<clivedavis.org> domain names.
3.
Respondent
registered and used the <clivedavis.com>, <clivedavis.net>,
<clivedavis.org> domain names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Clive Davis, is a legend
within the music industry. Davis is the
former head of Arista Records and was instrumental in the success of such
popular artists as Whitney Houston, Patti Smith, Kenny G, Barry Manilow and
Sarah McLachlan. The New York Friars
Club honored him as 1992’s “Man of the Year.”
In 1993, he was named “The Most Influential Record Executive of the Past
Twenty Years” by Radio and Records. In
1997, Davis received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In 1999, Davis received a lifetime
achievement award at the Grammy Award ceremony and, in 2000, Davis was inducted
into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
After leaving Arista, Davis launched J Records in August 2000. In its first year, J Records had four albums
debuting in the top 10. Among the artists with J Records are Alicia Keys,
Luther Vandross, Busta Rhymes, O-Town, Rod Stewart, and Abra Moore, and new
artists Mario and Lamya.
Complainant has acquired substantial fame
and secondary meaning in the CLIVE DAVIS name and mark, such that the general
public has come to associate CLIVE DAVIS as a leader in entertainment
commodities.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
names of <clivedavis.com> on July 11, 2001, <clivedavis.net> and <clivedavis.org> on May 7, 2002. Respondent’s websites are not
licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark for any purpose. The websites remain dormant, with no
activity since inception.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of 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.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the
Rules.
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 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 acquired common law
rights in the name and mark CLIVE DAVIS as the term has sufficient secondary
meaning to be associated with Complainant.
Through numerous awards and notoriety, Complainant has become more than
a name, but a music icon. Common law
rights vest in a name when the name has become so famous as to become
commonplace, the proverbial “household name.”
See Roberts v. Boyd,
D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that trademark registration was not
necessary and that the name “Julia Roberts” has sufficient secondary
association with Complainant that common law trademark rights exist); see
also Jagger v. Hammerton, FA
95261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (Complainant held common law trademark
rights in his famous name MICK JAGGER).
Respondent’s <clivedavis.com>, <clivedavis.net>,
and <clivedavis.org> are
identical to Complainant’s common law mark.
Respondent incorporates
Complainant’s entire mark in its domain name. Given the fame and media
attention that Complainant receives, the mere addition of a general top-level
domain while incorporating the entire mark of Complainant is not adequate to
create a distinct and unique domain name that is not identical. See
Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30,
2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to
Complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com>
is identical to Complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark); see also Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra
Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name
<robohelp.com> is identical to Complainant’s registered ROBOHELP
trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing
difference").
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has thus been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not submitted a response
to the complaint, thereby permitting the Panel to conclude that all reasonable
inferences made by Complainant are true and accurate unless there is evidence
that is clearly contradictory. Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v.
webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure
to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of
Complainant to be deemed true); Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398
(WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that
Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the
evidence). There is no evidence that
contradicts the allegations of Complainant.
Complainant has presented evidence that substantiates its claim that
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the contested domain names.
The disputed domain names have remained
inactive and undeveloped since they were registered. Respondent’s <clivedavis.com> domain name was registered on June 11, 2001,
and the <clivedavis.net> and <clivedavis.org> domain names were registered on May 7,
2002. There has been no attempt to try
to utilize these domains for a bona fide offering of goods and services. There are no rights or legitimate interests
in a domain name when there has been no attempt to develop a website into a
genuine use in connection with a offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that when Respondent declares its
intent to develop a website, “[Policy ¶] 4(c)(i) requires Respondent to show 1)
‘demonstrable’ evidence of such preparations to use the domain name, and 2)
that such preparations were undertaken ‘before any notice to [Respondent] of
the dispute’”); see also Melbourne
IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that Respondent
made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name
dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and Respondent is not
commonly known by the domain name).
There has been no evidence submitted to
indicate that Respondent has a substantial affiliation with, or is known by the
<clivedavis.com>,
<clivedavis.net>, and <clivedavis.org> domain names. Since Respondent has not come forward with a viable alternative for its use of Complainant’s common law mark and name and
Respondent does not have the authorization or consent, the Panel finds that
Respondent has no rights to the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior
rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is
not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397
(WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one
“would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate
interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE
trademark).
Nor has
Respondent used the domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
purpose under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
BMW AG v. Loophole,
D2000-1156 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where
Respondent claimed to be using the domain name for a non-commercial purpose but
had made no actual use of the domain name).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has thus been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
At the time of
registration of the disputed domain names, Respondent knew, or should have
known, of Complainant’s famous name and mark.
Since the disputed domain names are identical to Complainant’s name and
mark, Respondent must have registered the domain names in bad faith by
intentionally trying to infringe on Complainant’s mark. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony
Holding, FA 94313 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual
or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of
registration); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad
faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively”).
There is a
definite pattern that has arisen in the bad faith registration of the disputed
domain names. Respondent registered <clivedavis.com>
on June 11, 2001, and <clivedavis.net> and <clivedavis.org> were registered on May 7, 2002. Respondent engaged in a pattern of trying to
monopolize Complainant’s mark by registering multiple infringing domain
names. It is evidence of bad faith
registration and use when a party engages in a pattern of registration of
infringing domain names, with intent to prevent another party from being able
to reflect their own mark under Policy
¶ 4(b)(ii). See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent knew or
should have known of the Complainant’s SONY marks and (2) Respondent registered
multiple domain names which infringed upon Complainant’s mark); see also
Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of
several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶
4(b)(ii)).
Given the
nature of Complainant’s mark in commerce, there can be no conceivable good
faith use of the infringing domain names in the future. Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed
domain names shows an intent to use the domain names in bad faith. Respondent did not refute any allegation
proposed by Complainant, so it must be assumed that there was no intent to
utilize the domain names except in bad faith.
See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30,
2000) (finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that
connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name
permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely
holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad
faith).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) has thus been satisfied.
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel hereby concludes that the requested
relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the
domain names <clivedavis.com>, <clivedavis.net>, <clivedavis.org> be
TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 31, 2002
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page