Lee Caplin v. SLP
Claim
Number: FA0311000210305
Complainant is Lee Caplin, Hollywood, CA, (“Complainant”)
represented by Thomas A. Guida, of Baker & Hostetler LLP,
666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103.
Respondent is SLP, 3145 Geary
Blvd., Suite 141, San Francisco, CA 94118 (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <truedetective.com>, registered with Tucows,
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on November 13, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 21, 2003.
On
November 14, 2003, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <truedetective.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc.
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, 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 25, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of December 15, 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@truedetective.com 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 29, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq.,
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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <truedetective.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s TRUE DETECTIVE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate
interests in the <truedetective.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <truedetective.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
filed an Intent To Use (“ITU”) application for the TRUE DETECTIVE mark, in
connection with comic and fiction books, with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in October of 1998.
Complainant first used the TRUE DETECTIVE mark in April of 1999. Complainant subsequently received its
trademark for TRUE DETECTIVE based on its use in commerce (Reg. No. 2462235).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name, <truedetective.com>, on March
5, 1999, which is prior to Complainant’s actual use of its mark, but after
Complainant had filed its ITU.
Respondent uses the name to host a site containing pornographic
material, as well as the statement, “Coming in 2001,” which apparently has not
been changed in years.
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 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 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
established rights in the TRUE DETECTIVE mark through filing an ITU with the
USPTO, and subsequently successfully registering and using the mark in commerce
beginning in 1999, one month after Respondent’s registration of the disputed
domain name.
Complainant’s
mark is identical to the disputed domain name because the addition of a
top-level domain is irrelevant for purposes of determining similarity under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429
(WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as
“.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc.,
D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that the addition of a top-level
domain is without legal significance).
Therefore,
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Therefore, the Panel may accept all
reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant, without the
benefit of a Response. See Vert.
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb.
Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all
reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed
true); see also Pavillion Agency,
Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding
that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they
have no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore,
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests because the domain name is
used to host pornographic material, potentially diluting and tarnishing Complainant’s
mark. Such use is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a noncommercial
or fair use of the name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v.
Quicknet, D2003-0215 (WIPO May 26, 2003) (stating, the “use of the
disputed domain name in connection with pornographic images and links tarnishes
and dilutes [Complainant’s mark]” was evidence that Respondent had no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Paws, Inc. v.
Zuccarini a/k/a Country Walk, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002)
(holding that the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an
established mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website
“tarnishes Complainant’s mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name by a respondent”); see also McClatchy Mgmt. Servs., Inc.
v. Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc., FA 155902 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2,
2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names
to divert Internet users to a website that features pornographic material, had
been “consistently held” to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or
services . . . nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Additionally,
there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The
WHOIS registration information fails to imply that Respondent is commonly known
by the name. See Tercent Inc.
v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating, “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also
Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store,
FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).
Therefore,
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has
used the disputed domain name for the purpose of providing pornographic
material, potentially tarnishing and diluting Complainant’s mark, which is
evidence of bad faith, absent evidence to the contrary. See Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that
absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic,
adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith); see also Microsoft Corp.
v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use
of Complainant’s mark to post pornographic photographs and to publicize
hyperlinks to additional pornographic websites evidenced bad faith use and
registration of the domain name); see also Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.
Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO March 4, 2003) (stating, “whatever the motivation
of Respondent, the diversion of the domain name to a pornographic site is
itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was
registered and is being used in bad faith”); 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”).
Therefore,
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <truedetective.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
January 7, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page