Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Initiative Legal Group
Claim Number: FA1207001455024
Complainant is Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Complainant”), represented by Spencer L. Soohoo, California, USA. Respondent is Initiative Legal Group (“Respondent”), represented by Rebecca Labat, California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Roberto A. Bianchi as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 24, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 24, 2012.
On July 25, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 31, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 2012 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@cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com. Also on July 31, 2012, 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 August 20, 2012.
On August 24, 2012, the Forum received an Additional Submission from Complainant. This submission was timely, in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.
On August 27, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Roberto A. Bianchi as Panelist.
On August 29, 2012, the Forum received an Additional Submission from Respondent. This submission was timely, in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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.
The Panel has considered the Additional Submissions of the Parties, only to the extent that the Parties have developed their arguments with respect to nominative fair use of Complainants mark in the disputed domain name, and disregarding allegations already made in the Complaint and the Response respectively.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
In its Amended Complaint, Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CEDARS-SINAI mark because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, along with the standard English words “unpaid wages”, which is insufficient to alert Internet users that the disputed domain name is not affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant.
Respondent cannot establish that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made prior use of the CEDARS-SINAI mark in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant has been continuously using this mark since 1961, long before Respondent provided any purported services. The obvious purpose of Respondent’s use of the mark is to unlawfully divert consumer traffic using the Cedars-Sinai name. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is a transparent attempt to trade on the fame and goodwill of Complainant’s mark by luring Internet users to Respondent’s website by mistake. Such actions do not give rise to bona fide rights or interests in Respondent in the disputed domain name.
Respondent’s business has never been commonly known as “Cedars-Sinai.” Complainant has not granted Respondent the right to use its registered trademark for any purpose.
Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name leads directly to an advertisement for Initiative Legal Group, thus showing Respondents intent for commercial gain. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert consumer traffic from Complainant’s websites and to solicit business from potential litigants against Complainant. Respondent is thus attempting to profit from unlawful use of the Complainant’s mark. In addition, Respondent’s actions effectively associate the “Cedars-Sinai” name with litigation or other legal proceedings, thereby diluting Complainant’s goodwill and tarnishing Complainant’s registered trademark. There is no basis for any claim that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of Complainant’s trademark permissible under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the “Cedars-Sinai” mark constitutes willful infringement. Complainant’s ownership of the distinctive and well-established CEDARS-SINAI trademark is irrefutable: Complainant operates the only medical center in the United States that uses the “Cedars-Sinai” name in commerce since 1961. This mark has been registered in Complainant’s name with the USPTO for nearly 20 years. As the owner of the CEDARS-SINAI registered mark, Complainant alone has the right to use this name for commercial purposes. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to attract consumer traffic to its website creates a plain likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s registered trademark. By adopting a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark, Respondent is using the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the CEDARS-SINAI mark to profit from diverting and deceiving consumers who believe they are accessing a site sponsored by or associated with Cedars-Sinai but instead are directed to Respondent’s web address. Respondent’s actions thus constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent was aware of Complainant and its rights at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name in light of the fame and notoriety of the CEDARS-SINAI registered mark. This conduct alone constitutes bad faith and justifies transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
Complainant can also demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith in that it has registered the domain name to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Indeed, the only conceivable reason that Respondent would have for using the Complainant’s registered trademark is to divert individuals who are interested in commencing litigation against Complainant to retain Initiative Legal Group, the law firm which advertises its services at the <cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com> website. These facts conclusively demonstrate Respondent‘s bad faith
B. Respondent
In its Response, Respondent contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CEDARS-SINAI mark. While often the inclusion of a generic term will not serve to distinguish a domain name from a mark, the addition of the term “unpaid wages” eliminates the likelihood of confusion. A viewer would not confuse the disputed domain name with the CEDARS-SINAI mark, as it would be evident that the website is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant, a medical services provider. Rather, the plain meaning of the term “Cedars-Sinai unpaid wages” suggests the opposite reading — a web site for those who worked for Cedars-Sinai that may not have received the wages they were lawfully entitled to. The term “unpaid wages” has a pejorative connotation and distinguishes the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark as it is clearly a website that is critical of Complainant.
The CEDARS-SINAI mark, by Complainant’s own admission, is distinctive and well established. Due to the fame and good will of this mark in connection with medical services, there is no likelihood of confusion by Internet users as to any affiliation between Complainant and the disputed domain name.
Complainant has failed to demonstrate that Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a nominative fair use of Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). In accordance with the standards set forth by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the elements for nominative fair use of a mark are as follows: (1) the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) only so much of the mark may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and (3) the use must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) provides that “fair use” is a legitimate use, as long as the Respondent has “no intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." Respondent’s use in this case is a clear nominative fair use and Respondent does not seek to gain commercially by “misleadingly divert[ing] customers,” or by “tarnish[ing] the trademark.” Respondent is using Complainant’s mark for the sole purpose of referring to Complainant. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for Respondent to adequately identify Complainant without making reference to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant admits that the “Cedars-Sinai” name is distinctive and well established and that “Complainant operates the only medical center in the United States that uses the Cedars-Sinai name.” Accordingly, when informing the public regarding their legal rights and remedies against Cedars-Sinai, Respondent needs to use the widely known mark in order to properly identify Complainant.
Complainant has failed to demonstrate bad faith in connection with Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. Even analyzing the facts at hand in light of Policy ¶ (4)(b) would not serve Complainant’s purposes. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to attract users to their website by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion. The web site clearly states that Respondent is a law firm currently investigating claims that Complainant may have failed to pay its employees the wages to which they were lawfully entitled. No reasonable Internet user reaching this website looking for Complainant’s services would be confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the website, and is unlikely to experience initial interest confusion upon encountering the disputed domain name and website. Such Internet users would not find any information regarding Complainant’s services, but would find only information about possible labor violations that occurred at Cedars-Sinai, as well as information regarding seeking counsel about their legal rights in connection with their employment with Cedars-Sinai. Accordingly, no Internet user would find any reason to believe that a site clearly affiliated with Initiative Legal Group, a law firm, is endorsed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in any way.
C. Additional Submissions
In its Additional Submission, Complainant makes the following contentions:
Respondent has admitted that the CEDARS-SINAI mark is distinctive and well established, and that the term “unpaid wages” is descriptive. As stated by Respondent, “[a]mong Respondent’s clients are employees of Complainant, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”), whose rights may have been violated when Complainant reportedly failed to fully compensate them for all wages owed to them.” Further, Respondent argues that its use of the disputed domain name constitutes a nominative fair use of Complainant’s mark. Thus, Respondent concedes that the term “unpaid wages” is descriptive. Such a concession clearly supports Complainant’s argument that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally registered and well-known trademarks.
Although Respondent argues that it is using its website as a gripe site, that is simply not true. The <cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com> website actually contains very little negative information; in fact, it expressly avoids criticizing Complainant. Rather than simply offering information critical of Cedars-Sinai, the website indicates that the law firm Initiative Legal Group APC, is investigating whether Cedars-Sinai failed to properly compensate employees and whether it could be subject to a class action lawsuit. Aside from this information, the website requests the contact information of individuals who may be potential claimants in such a class action lawsuit. Thus, by any measure, this website is purely a commercial venture, rather than a gripe site as Respondent claims.
Respondent further argues that the term “unpaid wages” has a pejorative connotation which shows that the disputed domain name would not be sponsored by, or affiliated with, Complainant. However, the term “unpaid wages”, as used in the disputed domain name, has no such pejorative meaning on its face (unlike other terms such as “sucks”, etc.). In fact, the disputed domain name could easily be a website established by Complainant to be used by employees and/or former employees to request adjustments to their wages, past and present. Complainant already owns several domain names similar in nature to the disputed domain name, including the following: <cedars-sinai-lawsuit.net>, <cedars-sinai-lawsuit.org>, <cedars-sinailawsuit.com>, <cedars-sinailawsuit.net>, <cedars-sinailawsuit.org>, <cedarssinailawsuit.com>, <cedarssinailawsuit.net>, and <cedarssinailawsuit.org>. The term “unpaid wages” is no more pejorative than the term “lawsuit”, and in fact is descriptive and benign. This fact, coupled with the fact that Complainant owns other such domain names, indicates that the disputed domain name could easily be owned by or affiliated with Complainant.
Consumers viewing the disputed domain name are likely to assume that there is an association or relationship between Complainant and Respondent based on the similarity of Complainant’s mark to the disputed domain name.
Because Respondent is unable to demonstrate that it meets any of the criteria of Policy ¶ 4(c), it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent cannot claim it is making a legitimate noncommercial ºuse of the disputed domain name because its use is clearly commercial — it is using the disputed domain name for its own financial gain, specifically, to attract potential clients to the law firm. Policy § 4(c)(iii) requires a respondent to prove its use of the domain name is either a noncommercial or a fair use without intent for commercial gain. The meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) is clear. The phrase “fair use” is qualified by the phrase “without intent for commercial gain.” Respondent’s argument that its blatant commercial use of Complainant’s well-known and well-regarded mark is a protected fair use is disingenuous. If Respondent’s goal were not to misleadingly divert these consumers, there would be no need to use Complainant’s well-known mark. Respondent is using the Cedars-Sinai mark in such a way that it implies a possible sponsorship or endorsement of the name and site by Complainant and suggests that Cedars-Sinai is using the site to offer a legitimate service by to its employees or former employees.
Respondent’s name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The only reason Respondent has selected the disputed domain name is to trade on Complainant’s name. Consumers searching for Cedars-Sinai online will likely be directed to Respondent’s website in response to an Internet search query. Once directed to Respondent’s website, consumers will see Complainant’s trademark, CEDARS-SINAI, in large blue letters across the screen, much larger than any other text on the website. It should be noted that the lettering used to display Cedars-Sinai’s mark is extremely similar to the lettering used by Cedars-Sinai on its own official website, <cedars-sinai.edu>. This misuse further adds to the potential for confusion and further evidences the bad faith of Respondent in adopting the disputed domain name.
In its Additional Submission, Respondents contends as follows:
The use of an additional submission should be limited to non-substantive matters. Complainant’s Additional Submission seeks to introduce new facts and arguments, it is in reality an attempt to amend the Complaint, and should be disregarded.
Complainant’s Additional Submission is Insufficient to rehabilitate the Inadequate Complaint.
The disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark. Complainant argues that the first term in a mark is generally considered to be dominant in the likelihood of confusion analysis. Numerous panels have found that the overall impression of the domain name must be similar to complainant’s mark for the domain name to be considered confusingly similar. In the case at hand, when considering the disputed domain name in its entirety, Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name are not confusingly similar.
Complainant argues that the term “unpaid wages” is descriptive and therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. However, “unpaid wages”, a descriptive term designed to be critical of the trademark owner, and clearly not affiliated with the trademark owner should not considered confusingly similar to the trademark.
Complainant asserts that Respondent argues that the disputed domain name and website is a gripe site, and not being used for commercial gain. Rather, Respondent argues that the critical term “unpaid wages” distinguishes the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark- and that the disputed domain name is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant.
For Complainant to argue that they could own a domain name that is critical of them because they own other such domain names is reason to conclude that the domain dame is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is unpersuasive. While Complainant may elect to register domain names that are clearly critical of Complainant, this does not mean that an Internet user would assume that there is an association or relationship between Complainant and these critical domain names.
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant attempts to impute imaginary assertions on to the Respondent. Complainant states, “Respondent acknowledges that it cannot satisfy the requirements for the first two criteria and thus argues only that it has rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under § 4(c)(m).” However, Respondent has not made such assertion in their Response, nor do they now. Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c), in order to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, Respondent must demonstrate one of the circumstances of Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent agrees that a proper reading of the Policy leads to a finding that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(c) can be mutually exclusive. However, Complainant misinterprets the Policy by arguing that “the phrase “fair use” is qualified by the phrase “without intent for commercial gain” and omits the phrase “to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.” This reading of the Policy not only leads to a mistaken interpretation of the Policy where fair use is only permitted when the Respondent is making a noncommercial use of the disputed domain name, but also makes it so that ¶ 4(c)(i) and ¶ 4(c)(iii) would be in direct conflict under Complainant’s reading of the Policy. Under Complainant’s reading, one could not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and at the same time make a fair use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark constitutes a nominative fair use in that it is used for the sole purpose of referring to Complainant. Respondent’s law firm represents plaintiffs who may have had their rights violated when Complainant reportedly failed to fully compensate them for all wages owed to them. Respondent is currently investigating wage and hour claims against Cedars-Sinai and uses this website to provide information to the public regarding potential wage and hour claims they may have been subject to while working at
Cedars-Sinai. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark is to provide information to current and former employees regarding their rights under California Wage and hour laws and not to compete with Complainant.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s only possible purpose for selecting the disputed domain name is to divert consumers looking for Complainant to
Respondent’s own website. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Respondent is in the business of providing legal services, while Complainant provides medical services. The two entities in no way compete. Additionally, Respondents’ website uses a disclaimer which informs Internet users that the information on the site has been created by Initiative Legal Group which supports an inference that Respondent’s website is not affiliated with Complainant.
Complainant makes no showing of bad faith. Complainant asserts that the only reason Respondent has selected the disputed domain name is to trade on Complainant’s name. Contrary to Complainant’s assertion, consumers searching for Cedars-Sinai online will not be directed to Respondent’s website in response to an Internet search query for “Cedars-Sinai” (as evidenced by Attachment 3, a screenshot showing the results on whois.net for a domain keyword search for the search term “Cedars-Sinai”). Internet users attempting to reach the Cedars-Sinai website will not be directed to Respondent’s website without the inclusion the term “unpaid wages”.
Additionally, the lettering used to display the Cedars-Sinai mark is not similar to the lettering used by Cedars-Sinai on its own official website, “www.cedars-sinai.edu”. Respondent uses a light green color scheme, while Complainant uses a logo with their name and adopts a burgundy, grey and white color scheme.
Complainant is a non-profit hospital located in Los Angeles, California with medical, hospital, research and administration facilities. Complainant provides patient care, biomedical research, medical education and community service.
Complainant owns several registrations with the USPTO for marks containing the “Cedars-Sinai” name, inter alia, CEDARS-SINAI, Reg. No. 1779365, Reg. Date June 29, 1993, filed on November 3, 1992, covering medical services of International Class 42, with first use and first use in commerce in 1961.
Respondent is a law firm offering legal services and prosecuting class actions and other litigation on behalf of consumers, employees and others. Among Respondent’s clients are Complainant’s employees.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 12, 2012.
The website at the disputed domain name contains an initial page stating, inter alia,
Attorney Advertisement. Cedars-Sinai Employees: You Could Be Owed Unpaid Wages! Our law firm, Initiative Legal Group APC, is currently investigating claims that Cedars-Sinai may have failed to pay its employees all wages owed to them. California law may require Cedars-Sinai employees, depending on the facts, to be provided with: Overtime wages; Meal breaks; Rest breaks; Timely wages; and Reimbursement for business expenses. If you worked at Cedars-Sinai, you may be owed money. Our law firm, Initiative Legal Group APC, believes that Cedars-Sinai may have violated the law by failing to fully compensate employees as required by California law. We often pursue claims on a class action basis where the class representative may receive an incentive payment awarded by the court in a successful lawsuit in addition to his or her share of the class recovery. As a law firm that represents consumers, employees, and others who have had their rights violated, Initiative Legal Group APC is committed to obtaining the best possible results for its clients.
At another page of the website, a disclaimer is posted, stating,
Attorney Advertisement. Disclaimer. The information on this site has been created by Initiative Legal Group APC for informational purposes only, and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Online readers should not act, or decline to act, based on content from this site without first consulting an attorney or other appropriate professional. Transmission of the information on this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Moreover, contacting us, whether through this website or by other means, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Rules ¶ 15(a) 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."
Policy ¶ 4(a) 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.
Per its registration with the USPTO, Complainant has shown that it has trademark rights in the CEDARS-SINAI trademark. See “Findings” above.
The disputed domain name incorporates the CEDARS-SINAI mark almost entirely, suppressing the hyphen, and adding the generic or descriptive term “unpaid wages” and the gTLD “.com”. It is established that adding or suppressing a hyphen is a negligible factor for the confusing similarity test. See Nat’l Westminster Bank plc v. Westbrom, FA 1008190 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2007) (relating to the <nat-west-nw.com> domain name the panel found that “Respondent’s inclusion of several hyphens and the generic top-level domain “.com” alongside Complainant’s NATWEST mark does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s registered mark); see Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).
Also, adding a generic term to a complainant’s mark is insufficient to distinguish the domain name at issue from the incorporated mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CEDARS-SINAI mark.
During its independent visit to the website <cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com>, the Panel confirmed that the website contains an offer of legal services to potential clients having legal claims under California’s labor law against Complainant. Moreover, the content of the website is intended for Complainant’s employees believing that their wages and other compensation for their services have not been duly paid by Complainant.
In the Panel’s view, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name represents a nominative fair use of Complainant’s mark. Nominative fair use is protected both under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy and under the trademark law of the United States of America, the country of residence of both Parties.
In the first place, the test for nominative use requires that the respondent need to use the mark to describe its goods or services. In the present case, “Cedars-Sinai” is not only Complainant’s mark, but also the name of the employer against whom litigation to recover eventually unpaid wages would be instituted. Thus, in the Panel’s view, it is reasonable that the mark of Complainant be included in the disputed domain name in conjunction with the description of the cause of action for potential litigation, “unpaid wages”.
In the second place, the test requires that a respondent use no more of the complainant’s mark than necessary. Given that Respondent must necessarily mention Complainant’s name to identity the defendant against whom present or former employees would eventually have claims and commence litigation, it is obvious that this requirement is also met.
In the third place, the respondent should not falsely suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the mark owner. Whether or not the term “unpaid wages” has a pejorative connotation – as alleged by Respondent - or is merely descriptive - as alleged by Complainant - the conjunction of Complainant’s mark with such term certainly does not appear to suggest in the least any sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant. Moreover, on the website at the disputed domain name it is clearly stated that the content of the website has been posted by Respondent, a law firm unrelated to Complainant. See KBR, Inc. v. Raizner, FA 1413439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2011) (citing Pacific-10 Conference v. Lee, D2011-0200 (WIPO May 17, 2011) (citing in turn Toyota Motor Sales USA v. Tabari, 610 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Since Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in this case satisfies the nominative use test, the Panel finds that Complainant has not proved the second element set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a).
Given the Panel’s finding with regard to rights and legitimate interests, the Panel need not address the issue of bad faith. See I4 Solutions, Inc. v. Miani, FA 1153871 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 24, 2008) (finding it unnecessary to examine Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(i) and (ii), as the complainant must succeed under all three portions in order to grant the requested relief; thus, a denial under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) leads the Panel to decline to analyze the other portions of the Policy); see also 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 elements unnecessary).
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 <cedarssinaiunpaidwages.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Roberto A. Bianchi, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page