Beautiful People Magazine, Inc. v. Domain Manager / PeopleNetwork ApS / Kofod Nicolai / People Network Aps / Nicolai Kofod / People Network
Claim Number: FA1502001606976
Complainant is Beautiful People Magazine, Inc. (“Complainant”), Florida, USA. Respondents are Domain Manager / PeopleNetwork ApS / Kofod Nicolai / People Network Aps / Nicolai Kofod / People Network (collectively “Respondent”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <beautifulwomenonly.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC; <gaybeautifulpeople.com> and <beautifulpeople.net>, registered with EuroDNS S.A.; and <beautifulpeople.com> and <beautifulpeoplegay.com>, registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc.
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels Esq., Jonathan Hudis Esq. and Alan L. Limbury Esq. as Panelists.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 26, 2015. The Forum received payment on February 26, 2015.
On February 26, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain name was registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Nicolai Kofod is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Nicolai Kofod 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 February 27, 2015, Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names are registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA and that Domain Manager is the current registrant of the names. Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA has verified that Domain Manager is bound by the Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On February 27, 2015, EuroDNS S.A. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <beautifulpeople.net> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names are registered with EuroDNS S.A. and that Kofod Nicolai is the current registrant of the names. EuroDNS S.A. has verified that Kofod Nicolai is bound by the EuroDNS S.A. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On February 27, 2015 the Forum drew Complainant’s attention to certain deficiencies in the Complaint. On March 2, 2015, Complainant filed an Amended Complaint with the Forum.
On March 4, 2015, the Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@beautifulpeople.com, postmaster@beautifulpeople.net, postmaster@beautifulpeoplegay.com, postmaster@gaybeautifulpeople.com, and postmaster@beautifulwomenonly.com. Also on March 4, 2015, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 24, 2015.
Complainant submitted a timely Additional Submission that was received on March 30, 2015.
Respondent also submitted a timely Additional Submission that was received on April 3, 2015.
On April 22, 2015, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Forum appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels Esq., Jonathan Hudis Esq. and Alan L. Limbury Esq. as Panelists.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant says Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION and BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE registered trademarks and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, which were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent says it has trademark rights in BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE, the domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s alleged marks and that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, which were not registered and are not being used by Respondent in bad faith. The Panel should deny the Complaint and find that Complainant has committed reverse domain-name hijacking.
C. Additional Submissions
The Panel has taken into account the parties’ additional submissions.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
It appears to be common ground that the domain names, although registered in the names of different persons and entities, are under common ownership and control. The Panel so finds and treats all Respondents as one.
On February 21, 2002 Respondent registered the domain name <beautifulpeople.dk> (not the subject of these proceedings) and then began offering online dating and social networking services through that website. Respondent continued to offer such services via the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names, which were registered by Respondent on August 15, 2003 and September 29, 2005 respectively.
On May 5, 2008, Complainant filed an intent to use Application for federal registration in the United States of the trademark BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION for “Entertainment services, namely, conducting contests designed to promote socially beneficial goals”. This mark was registered on September 21, 2010, No. 3850644, citing August 31, 2009 as the date of first use in commerce.
On December 13, 2010, Complainant filed an intent to use Application for federal registration in the United States of the trademark BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE, US Application 85196831, for “Downloadable electronic publication, namely general interest magazine featuring philanthropy, fashion, health, food, world issues, travel, art and entertainment”. The Application was published for opposition on January 17, 2012. In February, 2012 Respondent filed an opposition to the Application (“the Opposition Proceedings”). The opposition was dismissed with prejudice on March 19, 2014 and the Application resulted in Registration No. 4653099 for the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE mark, disclaiming “magazine”, which issued on December 9, 2014, citing October 12, 2014 as the date of first use in commerce.
On February 7, 2011, Respondent filed an Application for U.S. federal trademark registration of BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE for dating services. Registration was refused on May 7, 2011 on the ground that the mark was purely descriptive. On March 10, 2011, Respondent applied to register BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE for entertainment services. Registration was refused on January 8, 2015 on the ground of likely confusion with Complainant’s BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE mark.
On November 4, 2011 Respondent registered the <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names and on June 1, 2012 Respondent registered the <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain name. Respondent has used those domain names to offer online dating and social networking services.
By letter dated December 12, 2014, Complainant’s attorney wrote to Respondent’s attorney offering to license Respondent one or more of Complainant’s marks (registered and applied for) for an annual down payment of between 4 and 12 million dollars US plus monthly payments of between 300,000 and 1 million dollars US. Respondent did not reply.
FINDINGS
The domain names <beautifulpeople.net>, <beautifulpeople.com> <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> are not identical but are confusingly similar to the marks in which Complainant has rights. The <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
Respondent’s registrations of the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names and their use to offer dating services predate Complainant’s registration and first use of the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION and BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE marks by several years. Although the <beautifulpeoplegay.com>, <gaybeautifulpeople.com> and <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain names were registered after the registration and first use of Complainant’s BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION trademark, the use of all the domain names in accordance with their descriptive meaning to offer dating services indicates that Respondent was not intending to target Complainant’s trademark and establishes that Respondent has legitimate interests in the domain names and has not acted in bad faith.
Complainant has engaged in reverse domain hijacking.
This administrative proceeding is not the forum in which to resolve the parties’ conflicting claims to their respective trademarks, as a reading of the Policy makes clear.
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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy 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.
Complainant has rights in the trademarks BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE and BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy embodies no requirement that Complainant’s trademark rights must have arisen before the domain names were registered. While this factor is not relevant in determining whether Complainant has established rights in a mark to which the domain names are identical or confusingly similar, it is relevant for purposes of Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, as is addressed below. See, e.g., Valve Corporation v. ValveNET, Inc., ValveNET, Inc., Charles Morrin WIPO Case No. D2005-0038.
It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com” or “.net” does not generally affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
The Panel finds none of the domain names to be identical to either of Complainant’s marks.
As to confusing similarity, Complainant says the domain names have a similar appearance, sound, and commercial impression as Complainant's marks; the goods and services provided under the domain names, namely dating services, calendars, and a reality TV show, are similar to goods/services sold by Complainant; and the consumer markets and trade channels through which Respondent sells services/goods are similar to those of Complainant, in that Complainant and Respondent sell goods and services via the Internet.
The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the other marketing and use factors, such as the "Sleekcraft factors" – AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341,346 (9th Cir. 1979), usually considered in trademark infringement or unfair competition cases. See Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, NAF Case No. FA 96364; Vivendi Universal v. Mr. Jay David Sallen and GO247.COM, Inc., WIPO Case No.D2001-1121, and the cases there cited. See also the similar approach adopted by the U.S. Federal court in Northern Light Tech., Inc. v. N. Lights Club 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4732 (D. Mass. March 31, 2000).
Applying this test to the domain names here at issue, the Panel finds the domain names <beautifulpeople.net>, <beautifulpeople.com>, <gaybeautifulpeople.com> and <beautifulpeoplegay.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, since they all juxtapose the words “beautiful” and “people”, being the dominant elements of Complainant’s marks. The addition of the word “gay” as a prefix and as a suffix does not detract from those dominant elements sufficiently to negate confusing similarity. In relation to these domain names, Complainant has established this element.
The domain name <beautifulwomenonly.com> does not include the word “people” and adds to the common descriptive word “beautiful” the words “women” and “only”. The Panel does not find this domain name to be confusingly similar to either of Complainant’s marks. Complainant has not established this element in relation to the <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain name and Complainant’s request for transfer of that domain name must be denied.
Although references hereafter in this determination to “the domain names” are references only to the <beautifulpeople.net>, <beautifulpeople.com>, <gaybeautifulpeople.com>, and <beautifulpeoplegay.com> domain names, the Panel’s findings in relation to the <gaybeautifulpeople.com>, and <beautifulpeoplegay.com> domain names would apply equally to the <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain name.
Once a complainant makes a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent, the evidentiary burden shifts to the respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name: See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by a respondent, shall demonstrate its rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant’s assertions on this element are that Respondent has no state, federal or common law trademarks in the US for "beautiful people”, "beautifulpeople.com” or any variants and that Respondent’s US trademark application filed on February 7, 2011 for BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE for dating services was refused registration because the examiner found it merely descriptive. These assertions are irrelevant, since the question to be decided is not whether Respondent has a valid trademark but whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s use of the domain names has been and is "merely descriptive"; that Respondent has never had any other rights in the domain names, certainly not since the registration of Complainant's marks; and that Respondent is making purely commercial use of the domain names so this is not a fair use situation.
The Panel considers that the making of purely commercial use of descriptive domain names in accordance with their descriptive meaning, without more, does not amount to a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of the registrant.
Although it is doubtful that Complainant’s mere assertion that Respondent has never had any rights in the domain names does make such a showing, the Panel nevertheless proceeds on the basis that it does, and that Respondent bears the onus of establishing that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
The Panel is clearly of the view that Respondent has done this. Whether or not Respondent has trademark rights in BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE and BEAUTIFULPEOPLE.COM as Respondent asserts (an issue this Panel need not determine), Respondent has provided evidence that, beginning many years prior to the first use and subsequent registration of either of Complainant’s trademarks, Respondent has used the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names to provide online dating services, calendars and in connection with a television show and that, subsequent to the registration of Complainant’s BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION mark, has used the <gaybeautifulpeople.com> and <beautifulpeoplegay.com> domain names for the same purpose. Such use demonstrates Respondent’s bona fide use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See LML Investments LLC v. P.A. Gordon FA1407001571756 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 9, 2014).
Accordingly, Respondent has established that it has rights and legitimate interests in the domain names and Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
As to this element, Complainant contends that Respondent’s failure to reply to Complainant’s written offers to license marks to Respondent makes clear that Respondent intends to make money from selling the domain names to Complainant for a much higher fee than the relatively low cost of registering a domain name in the future; that Respondent is maintaining the registrations for the domain names to prevent Complainant from registering them; to prevent and/or diminish Complainant's online presence and to disrupt business opportunities for Complainant; and in an attempt intentionally to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks; that Respondent is showing bad faith by willfully continuing to maintain registrations for the domain names and by willfully refusing to respond to Complainant's offer to license marks; and that Respondent is fully aware that Respondent is infringing Complainant's trademarks but continues to maintain and use the domain names in violation of Complainant's trademark rights.
Whether or not Respondent’s current use of the domain names constitutes trademark infringement is an issue which only a court can determine.
The Panel considers that Respondent’s failure to reply to Complainant’s offer of a licence does not constitute evidence to support Complainant’s bald assertion that Respondent intends to make money from selling the domain names to Complainant. There is no evidence to support Complainant’s assertions that Respondent is maintaining the domain name registrations to prevent Complainant from registering them; to prevent and/or diminish Complainant's online presence and to disrupt business opportunities for Complainant; and in an attempt intentionally to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. The Panel does not accept that Respondent is acting in bad faith by continuing to maintain registrations for the domain names and by refusing to respond to Complainant's offer to license marks for at least 1 million dollars US per annum plus monthly payments of at least 300,000 US dollars.
Although Joshua Domond, a co-owner of Complainant, who may be treated as Complainant for present purposes, filed an application on December 10, 2007 to register the mark BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE, on the basis of claimed actual use as of the date of filing; that application was abandoned because the applicant was unable to provide any evidence of use of the mark as of the date of filing or at all. The Panel does not regard that application as affording any basis for the conclusion that Complainant ever used that mark prior to October 12, 2014.
The registrations of the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names and Respondent’s commercial use of them preceded by some years the filing of Respondent’s intent to use applications to register the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION and BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE marks.
Under these circumstances there is no evidence before the Panel which could justify an inference that Respondent had Complainant or its marks in mind when registering the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not shown that Respondent registered those domain names in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.1 (“when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainant’s relied-upon trademark right is shown to have been first established (whether on a registered or unregistered basis), the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant's then non-existent right.”); see also Dreamgirls, Inc. v. Dreamgirls Entertainment, D2006-0609 (WIPO Aug. 10, 2006) (finding that the principle articulated in WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.1 “is so well established that it is among the twenty issues covered in the WIPO Decision Overview for which a consensus has been identified.”).
The <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names were registered by Respondent after the registration of Complainant’s BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION mark and after the filing of Complainant’s application to register the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE mark; and also after Respondent applied to register the mark BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE on February 7, 2011, serial No. 85236075, and on March 10, 2011, serial No. 85264026.
The Panel considers there is no evidence from which the conclusion can properly be drawn that, when registering the <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names, Respondent was aware of Complainant’s registration or use of the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION mark nor of Complainant’s application to register the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE MAGAZINE mark, which was not published for opposition until January 17, 2012.
There is no place under the Policy for the concept of constructive knowledge because the essence of the Complaint is an allegation of bad faith targeted at the Complainant. This requires the cybersquatter to have actual knowledge of the trade mark owner or of the trademark. See: The Way International Inc. v. Diamond Peters, WIPO Case No. D2003-0264 and Asset Marketing Systems, LLC v. Silver Lining, WIPO Case No. D2005-0560.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not shown that Respondent had Complainant or either of its marks in mind when registering the <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names nor that Respondent registered those domain names in bad faith.
Given the descriptive nature of Complainant’s marks, even if Respondent were shown to have had knowledge of Complainant or either of its marks when registering the <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names, such knowledge alone would not suffice to establish bad faith registration, as would be the case were Complainant’s marks inherently distinctive and very well known. See Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151. More would be needed, such as evidence from which could be inferred intent to take advantage of the goodwill in Complainant’s marks.
The Panel therefore finds that none of the domain names were registered in bad faith.
All of the domain names, including those registered after the Complainant’s first use of its BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION mark on August 31, 2009, have been used consistently to promote the legitimate online dating services Respondent has offered since 2002 via the domain name <beautifulpeople.dk>. Accordingly, the Panel finds that none of the domain names have been or are being used in bad faith.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Reverse domain name hijacking
Rule 1 defines reverse domain name hijacking as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain‑name holder of a domain name”. See also Rule 15(e).
“[A] finding of [RDNH] is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy. [. . .] [S]uch a finding is particularly appropriate where the Respondent’s registration of the domain name predates the very creation of the Complainant’s trademark.” carsales.com.au Limited v. Alton L. Flanders, D2004-0047 (WIPO April 8, 2004) (citing Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online advice, D2003-0297 (WIPO July 18, 2003)). Ordinarily if the face of the complaint itself demonstrates a settled reason why the complaint must be denied, a panel may make a finding of RDNH. See Liquid Nutrition Inc. v. liquidnutrition.com/Vertical Axis Inc., D2007-1598 (WIPO January 28, 2008) (finding RDNH where the Claimant alleged its first use of the mark was four years after the domain name had been registered).See also Scene LLC, dba Ookla v. Domain Buyer / Innovation HQ, Inc. FA1411001590403 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2015).
In Complainant’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgement dated August 8, 2013 in the Opposition Proceedings, (Response, Annex 20) Complainant asserted, through its President, Joshua Domond: “In this opposition, Opposer’s alleged [BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE] marks are plainly descriptive of products and services offered by Opposer” and “From Opposer’s website, it is clear that Opposer’s goods and services feature “beautiful people” as defined by the dictionary meanings of “beautiful” and “people”.”
Accordingly, Complainant was well aware, when it filed this Complaint on February 26, 2015, that Respondent is and has long been using the domain names descriptively in commerce to provide legitimate dating services.
Complainant was also aware when it filed this Complaint that Respondent registered the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names before Complainant had ever used either of its marks and that Respondent’s <beautifulpeoplegay.com> and <gaybeautifulpeople.com> domain names, although registered after registration of Complainant’s BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN ACTION mark, have also been and are being used descriptively in commerce to provide legitimate dating services.
Under these circumstances the Panel concludes that Complainant knew it could not prove bad faith registration of the <beautifulpeople.net> and <beautifulpeople.com> domain names, knew of Respondent’s unassailable legitimate interests in the domain names and nevertheless brought the Complaint in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds Complainant to have engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Complainant 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 <beautifulpeople.com>, <beautifulpeople.net>, <beautifulpeoplegay.com>, <gaybeautifulpeople.com>, and <beautifulwomenonly.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey M. Samuels Esq. and Jonathan Hudis Esq., Panelists
Alan L. Limbury Esq.
Panel Chair
Dated: May 4, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page