Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. Todd Fotuar
d/b/a Coalition for Human Decency, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0304000155181
PARTIES
Complainant is Talk Radio Network, Inc., Central
Point, OR (“Complainant”) represented by William
K. Kane of Kane Laduzinsky & Mendoza, Ltd.
Respondent is Todd Fotuar d/b/a Coalition for Human Decency, Inc., Phoenix, AZ (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name
at issue is <michaelsavagesucks.com>
registered with Domain People Inc.
PANEL
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.
Panelist is
Judge Karl V. Fink (Ret.).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 22, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 23, 2003.
On April 30,
2003, Domain People Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <michaelsavagesucks.com> is
registered with Domain People Inc. and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Domain People Inc. has verified that Respondent is
bound by the Domain People 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 May 5, 2003,
a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 27, 2003 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@michaelsavagesucks.com by e-mail.
A timely
Response was received and determined to be complete on May 23, 2003.
Complainant
tendered an untimely Additional Submission on June 2, 2003.
Respondent’s
response to Complainant’s tardy Additional Submission was received on June 4,
2003.
All submissions
were by the parties considered by the Panel.
On June 9, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed as Panelist Judge Karl
V. Fink (Ret.).
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant has
established rights in the Michael Savage mark by contract with the registrant. The only difference between Complainant’s
Michael Savage trademark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the
word “sucks” to Complainant’s mark.
The Internet is
a forum which reaches a worldwide audience, many of whom do not speak the English
language; for those users, the word “sucks’ would not sufficiently eliminate
any confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name.
Respondent does
not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <michaelsavagesucks.com> domain.
Respondent does
not use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent is
not commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent is not, and never has been, known as Michael Savage.
Respondent is
not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent is unlawfully re-broadcasting
clips of Complainant’s radio program, displaying banner advertising, and
providing links to commercial websites.
The Respondent’s
website includes false and malicious statements regarding Michael Savage and
the Complainant.
Respondent has
registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
Complainant’s business.
Respondent is
using the domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product
or service on Respondent’s website or location.
B. Respondent
The domain name,
<michaelsavagesucks.com> is
not identical to the trademark Michael Savage.
No one would
confuse a domain name suffixed with the word “sucks,” with that of the domain
name or trademark they were searching for.
Use of the
“sucks.com” suffix attached to a company name has become a standard formula for
Internet sites protesting the business practices of a company.
The Respondent
registered <michaelsavagesucks.com>
in January 2002, two months before the trademark was filed. The site’s main service is to inform and
educate the public about Michael Savage.
The Respondent
admits that he has never been commonly known by the Complainant’s “trademark”.
The Respondent
did not register the domain name in question, primarily for the purpose of
selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant
or a competitor of the Complainant.
The Respondent
did not register the domain name in question, in order to prevent the owner of
the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding
domain name.
The Respondent
did not register the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor. The Respondent
is not a competitor of the Complainant.
The Respondent
does not use the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating confusion,
using the Complainant’s mark.
C. Additional
Submissions
The standard is
whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in
which the Complainant has rights. The
Respondent’s use of the <michaelsavagesucks.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark “Michael Savage”.
In Stop and
Shop, the Panel found that Respondent’s addition of the word “sucks” to
Complainant’s mark fails to create a distinction capable of overcoming any
confusing similarity.
The confusion
arises when somebody searching for information about Michael Savage
unintentionally finds the Respondent’s domain.
That is precisely what the Respondent intends.
The Respondent’s
purpose is clear, to create a confusingly similar website to disrupt the
Complainant’s business.
Respondent has
failed to show any legitimate interest in the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent’s bad
faith use here is obvious. Respondent’s
website is registered to a fake address.
He listed his domain address with WHOIS as 123 Righteous Avenue, Any
town, Arizona.
The
Complainant’s statement, that the Respondent’s purpose was to create a
confusingly similar website to disrupt Complainant’s business, is unfounded and
without merit.
Respondent
readily admits to broadcasting clips of the radio program, but does not believe
it is doing so unlawfully.
The Respondent’s
domain name was registered on January 22, 2002. The trademark, “Michael Savage” did not exist at that time. The trademark was first filed on January 12,
1998, but was abandoned on March 1, 1999.
The trademark was filed again by Janet Weiner, on March 20, 2002, three
months after the Respondent registered the domain name in dispute.
Complainant is
not even the owner/applicant of the filed trademark, and furthermore, the
trademark has not yet reached, and may never reach the registered status.
The Respondent
is a married man with a wife and two children.
The Respondent decided to change the address listed, for the safety of
his family.
FINDINGS
For
the reason set forth below, the Panel denies the request to transfer the domain
name.
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.
The Panel finds
that the <michaelsavagesucks.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name includes the term “sucks”
after Complainant’s mark. Internet users would not confuse Respondent’s domain
name with Complainant’s mark because the addition of the term “sucks” indicates
that the disputed domain name has no affiliation with Complainant’s mark. See Robo
Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA
95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2000) (noting that using a negative domain name
for the purposes of criticism, such as <walmartcanadasucks.com>, does not
create confusion with the service mark of Complainant); see also
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Parisi, D2000-1015 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2001) (finding
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 such language clearly indicates that the domain name is not affiliated
with the trademark owner and therefore <lockheedmartinsucks.com> and
<lockheedsucks.com> cannot be considered confusingly similar to LOCKHEED
MARTIN).
Complainant has
not proven this element.
The Panel did not
decide the “rights or legitimate interests,” and “registration and use in bad
faith” elements since, under the Policy, the Complainant fails unless all three
elements necessary to have a domain name registration cancelled or transferred
are established.
DECISION
Since
Complainant has not proven the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
relief requested is DENIED.
Judge Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 24, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page