Dustin N. Diamond v. Max Goldberg
Claim Number: FA0402000237446
PARTIES
Complainant
is Dustin N. Diamond (“Complainant”),
represented by Brian A. Herro of Herro & Lamont LLC,
2070 Wisconsin Ave., Grafton, WI 53024. Respondent is Max Goldberg (“Respondent”), 847A Second Avenue, #302, New York, NY
10017.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <dustindiamond.com>
(the “Domain Name”), registered with Computer
Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com (hereinafter “Joker.com”).
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.
Michael
Albert as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on February 13, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 17, 2004.
On
February 17, 2004, Joker.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the Domain
Name <dustindiamond.com> is
registered with Joker.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Joker.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Joker.com
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
February 20, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of March 11, 2004 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@dustindiamond.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 11, 2004.
On March 22, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Michael Albert
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
asserts as follows:
·
Complainant
claims common law trademark rights with respect to his personal name for
performing, acting and other entertainment/media products and services, based
on his leading role in the television show Saved by the Bell and related
television movies and sequels, as well as his appearance in other movies,
magazines, and newspapers and his videotape/DVD entitled Dustin Diamond
Teaches Chess.
·
Respondent
operates the website <dustindiamond.com>,
and has continually used the website <dustindiamond.com>
to portray himself as Complainant.
·
Respondent
offered, over email, to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for $1,800. Complainant refused this offer.
·
Complainant
sent a certified cease and desist letter to Respondent at a California address
from the WHOIS database. The letter was
returned as undeliverable. Complainant
sent another certified cease and desist letter to Respondent at a New York
address, which was also returned as undeliverable. Finally, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent
over email. Respondent refused to
comply with the request until he received the letter by certified mail. Complainant mailed certified letters on two
separate occasions. Respondent has
refused to contact Complainant via phone or U.S. Mail despite several requests.
·
Complainant’s
common law trademark rights in his name have acquired secondary meaning, as
evidenced by nationwide sale of his instructional video.
·
Complainant’s
widespread usage of his trademark dates back to 1987, well before the
registration of <dustindiamond.com>.
·
The Domain
Name <dustindiamond.com> is
identical to Complainant’s trademark.
·
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and has not made any
legitimate use of the Domain Name.
·
Respondent
is not using the Domain Name as a parody or other legitimate noncommercial fair
use.
·
Respondent’s
sole use of the Domain Name is to misinform Internet users, tarnish
Complainant’s name and mark, and divert visitors to the website to a guestbook
which includes racist comments, vulgar messages, and links to pornographic
websites.
·
Respondent
has not used and has not made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
·
Respondent
routinely portrays himself as Complainant on the website.
·
Respondent
uses the email address screech@dustindiamond.com to give the impression that he
is Complainant.
·
Respondent
modified the website to disclaim affiliation with Complainant and suggest that
the site is a “fan club,” but has on occasion reverted back to the prior text
where Respondent portrays himself as Complainant.
·
Complainant
has never given Respondent permission to use his trademark, and has no
affiliation or association with Respondent.
·
Respondent
has no legitimate, good faith explanation of his use of the Domain Name.
·
Respondent
has no trademark rights in Complainant’s name.
·
The
following acts on the part of Respondent constitute bad faith:
o
Respondent’s
registration and use of a Domain Name identical to Complainant’s name and mark.
o
Respondent’s
offer to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for $1,800.
o
Respondent’s
providing false contact information in the form of the email address
screech@dustindiamond.com and responding to message board postings using
Complainant’s name.
o
Respondent’s
dilution by tarnishment of Complainant’s mark.
·
Respondent’s
disclaimer of association is insufficient to dispel bad faith.
B.
Respondent asserts as follows:
·
Respondent
is a well known creator of parody websites, including
<yourethemannowdog.com>, <getyourasstomars.com>, and the site at
issue in this case, <dustindiamond.com>. One of Respondent’s websites achieved the
distinction of the “Worst Web Site”
award by <worstwebsites.com>.
Respondent’s websites have spawned numerous imitations and parodies by
other creators.
·
Respondent
admits that he has never been known by Complainant’s trademark.
·
Respondent’s
website is a parody.
·
The
guestbook on Respondent’s website is a “free speech forum,” which is an
integral part of the parody.
·
Respondent
operates the website with no intent of commercial gain. The website has no commercial aspect, sells
no products, carries no advertising, and yields no income to Respondent.
·
Respondent
did not register the Domain Name for the purpose of selling, renting, or
otherwise transferring the Domain Name to Complainant or to a competitor of
Complainant.
·
Respondent
did not register the Domain Name to prevent Complainant from reflecting his
trademark in a corresponding domain name.
·
Respondent
did not register the Domain Name to disrupt the business of a competitor. Further, Respondent is not a competitor of
Complainant.
·
Respondent
denies ever having offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for
$1,800. Respondent further denies that
the email exchange concerning this transaction ever took place. Respondent notes that Complainant produced
no evidence of such an email exchange.
·
Respondent
denies that he ever wrote or posted emails posing as Dustin Diamond.
·
Respondent
denies that he ever portrayed himself as Dustin Diamond. Respondent points to numerous misspellings
on the website, specifically of Complainant’s name, as evidence that a visitor
to the site would be unlikely to think the site was run by Complainant. Respondent further argues that Complainant
would never refer to himself as a “FAMOUS SUPERSTAR AND SEX SYMBOL” based on
his public persona and thus that a visitor to the site would not come to
believe that the site was operated or sponsored by Complainant.
·
Respondent’s
disclaimer of affiliation with Complainant is further evidence that a visitor
to the site is unlikely to be confused about the sponsorship or origin of the
site. Respondent’s prompt addition of
the disclaimer after being contacted by Complainant’s representative is also
evidence of Respondent’s good faith.
·
Respondent
challenges the reliability of evidence offered by Complainant suggesting that
the disclaimer has appeared and disappeared periodically from his site. Respondent explains that the Internet
Archive is an automated system with no human oversight and is prone to error. Respondent contends that the disclaimer has
appeared continuously on the site since it was first added.
·
Respondent
never posted in the site’s guestbook under Complainant’s name or any other
name. Respondent has never posted any
content at all to the guestbook.
·
Respondent
has never sent any emails from the contact address on his website,
screech@dustindiamond.com.
·
In February
2003, Respondent attempted to forward to Complainant email he had received that
was apparently intended for Complainant.
Complainant’s representatives expressed no interest in receiving the
email, but instead attempted to threaten and harass Respondent into
relinquishing the Domain Name.
Respondent offers several email messages received from Complainant’s
representatives. These communications
from Complainant alleged, inter alia:
that Respondent was “defaming” Complainant; that impersonating an actor was
illegal; that Respondent had committed a felony; that Complainant’s
representative was contacting the police and “would like to press charges”;
that Complainant’s representative had instructed his attorney to file criminal
charges against Respondent; that “THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING”; that “charges
will be files [sic] today.”
·
Respondent
denies any bad faith relating to Complainant’s difficulty in sending mail to
Respondent. Respondent’s original
California address was correct at the time the Domain Name was registered, and
when Respondent moved to New York he updated the Domain Name record to reflect
his new address. Respondent maintains a
mailbox at a Mailboxes Etc., and is not at fault for Mailboxes Etc.’s refusal
to accept delivery of a certified letter.
·
Respondent
has never attempted to create consumer confusion by misportraying Complainant
or dilution by tarnishment. Respondent
offers numerous emails and letters of support as evidence that the public
understands the site as a parody. These
letters of support and explanation include a letter from a Professor of Cinema
Studies who coauthored two well-known books of religious parody among other
publications, and a letter from an art correspondent for the Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, and the Oxford American. These writers called the website “an electronic art installation
of great wit and outstanding merit,” a “parody,” and an “obvious and clearly
affectionate joke.”
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
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 prove each of the following
three elements to obtain an order that a domain name 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;
(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.
Paragraph
4(a)(i) imposes two requirements: (1) that Complainant have rights in a
trademark or service mark and (2) that the Domain Name in question be identical
or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The Panel addresses these two requirements in order.
Common
Law Trademark Rights
Panels
interpreting the UDRP have consistently held that the Policy affords protection
to those having common law trademark rights as well as to those having rights
in registered trademarks. See, Cedar
Trade Assocs., Inc., v. Ricks, FA 93633 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2000); see
also Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Lafwani, D2000-0014 (WIPO Mar. 11,
2000) (“it is this reputation from actual use which is the nub of the
complaint, not the fact of registration as trade marks.”). Many of the cases in
which common law trademark rights are asserted have involved personal names
that have, through use and publicity, acquired the distinctiveness necessary to
become trademarks or service marks: van Hooijdonk v. Tait, D2000-1068
(WIPO Nov. 4, 2000); Stam v. Cohen, D2000-1061 (WIPO Nov. 4, 2000); MPL
Communications Ltd. v. Hammerton, FA 95633 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25, 2000);
Feinstein v. PAWS Video Prods., D2000-0880 (WIPO Oct. 21, 2000); Carter
v. Afternoon Fiasco, D2000-0658 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000); Ciccone v. Parisi,
D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000); Estate of Getz v. Vogel, D2000-0773 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000); Adjani v.
Second Orbit Communications, Inc., D2000-0867 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000); Estate
of Shakur v. Shakur Info Page, AF 0346 (eResolution Sep. 28, 2000), Estate
of Francis v. Magidson Fine Art, Inc., D2000-0673 (WIPO Sep. 27, 2000); Adu
v. Quantum Computer Servs. Inc., D2000-0794 (WIPO Sep. 26, 2000); Marino,
Jr. v. Video Images Prods., D2000-0598 (WIPO Aug. 2, 2000); Rattner v.
BuyThisDomainName, D2000-0402 (WIPO July 3, 2000); Monty and Pat
Roberts, Inc. v. Keith, D2000-0299 (WIPO June 9, 2000); Roberts v. Boyd,
D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000); Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235 (WIPO
May 22, 2000); see also Sean Michaels Inc. v. Mark Allan Online Enm’t,
AF 0214 (eResolution July 2, 2000).
Respondent
admits that Complainant may have valid trademark rights, but contends that
these rights are limited by his own First Amendment rights. In light of the Panel’s ultimate finding
that Respondent has legitimate noncommercial or fair use rights under Paragraph
4(c)(iii) and has not registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith, the
Panel finds it unnecessary to address any potential First Amendment limitations
on trademark rights.
Complainant
in the instant case has established common law trademark rights in his name,
DUSTIN DIAMOND, arising from his roles in numerous television shows and motion
pictures, most notably the television show Saved by the Bell. Complainant’s common law trademark rights
are further strengthened by the use of his name as an indicator of source in
his instructional video entitled Dustin Diamond Teaches Chess. There can be no dispute that Complainant’s
use of DUSTIN DIAMOND as a trademark predates Respondent’s registration of <dustindiamond.com>.
The
Domain Name in question, <dustindiamond.com>,
is not only confusingly similar to the common law trademark DUSTIN DIAMOND, but
in fact nearly identical. It is well
established that “[t]he omission of spaces between the words of the trademark
and the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ is not significant in determining whether
the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark.” Larson v. Judy Larson Club,
FA 96488 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2001); accord Garnett v. Trap Block
Techs., FA 128073 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002); see also Gilmour v.
Cenicolla, D2000-1459 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (“[t]he suffix ‘.com’ and the
absence of spacing between the words are inconsequential”).
Respondent
argues that a visitor to the website is unlikely to be confused as to the
nature or origin of the site based on its content, which includes “outrageous
ugly and low-tech graphics and numerous obvious errors and misspellings,”
including a misspelling of Complainant’s name.
Respondent does not argue, however, that the Domain Name itself is not
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, setting aside the content
of the site.
The
Panel finds the Domain Name <dustindiamond.com>
is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s common law trademark
DUSTIN DIAMOND.
Paragraph
4(a)(ii) requires Complainant to establish that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name, while Paragraph 4(c) provides three
alternative means for Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests
in a domain name:
(1) before any notice to you of the
dispute, your use 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
(2) you (as an individual, business, or
other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you
have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(3) you are making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service
mark at issue.
Complainant
cites Garnett v. Trap Block Techs., FA 128073 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21,
2002) for the proposition that a mere allegation that Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) shifts the burden to
Respondent to show by concrete evidence that respondent has rights or
legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c). Some panels have held otherwise; see,
e.g., Arcturus Eng’g Inc. v. Arcturus, AF 0156 (eResolution May 19, 2000)
(“The complainant's contention that the respondent has not proven it has any
legitimate interest is not to the point, since it is the complainant who bears
the onus of proof on this issue.”)
Because Respondent has met his burden of proof under 4(c)(iii), it is unnecessary
for this Panel to decide exactly where the burden under 4(a)(ii) lies.
Respondent
is not using the website in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services, nor has he presented evidence that he intends to do so. Respondent argues that the “service” he
offers is a “parody or art installation,” however, this argument is more
properly directed to rights or interests under Paragraph 4(c)(iii) (legitimate
noncommercial or fair use). The Panel
is not aware of any cases in which a parody has been considered a “bona fide
offering of goods or services” within the meaning of the UDRP, nor has either
party to this arbitration brought any such case to the Panel’s attention. See, e.g., Oki Data Am., Inc. v. ASD,
Inc., D2001-0903 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2001) (to meet bona fide requirement,
domain name holder must offer the trademarked goods and use the site only for
the sale of the trademarked goods).
Thus, Respondent has not demonstrated rights or legitimate interests
under Paragraph 4(c)(i).
Respondent
admits that he has never been commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests under Paragraph 4(c)(ii).
Respondent
argues that his website constitutes legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
Domain Name, and thus has demonstrated legitimate interests under Paragraph
4(c)(iii). Complainant asserts, with
little or no evidentiary support, that the site in question is not fair use or
a parody. “Whether the commentary is in good taste, whether it is funny,
whether it is effective, all is beside the point.” Falwell v. Cohn, D2002-0184 (WIPO June 3, 2002). See also Springsteen v. Burgur,
D2000-1532 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2001) (no likelihood of confusion between common law
mark Bruce Springsteen and domain name <brucespringsteen.com> because even
the relatively unsophisticated Internet user would realize that not every
domain bearing the name Bruce Springsteen is an official site).
The
Panel accepts Respondent’s argument that the “outrageous ugly and low-tech
graphics and numerous errors and misspellings” as well as the sheer absurdity
of the site’s claim that Dustin Diamond is a “FAMOUS SUPERSTAR AND SEX SYMBOL”
clearly signal that the site is not meant to be taken seriously. Whether the site is regarded as parody,
satire, or critical commentary, and notwithstanding Respondent’s assertion that
“[l]awyers are notoriously bad at understanding how humor works,” this Panel
finds that legitimate noncommercial fair use commentary is involved.
Complainant
contends that the site’s guestbook shows that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Complainant also offers the guestbook as evidence of Respondent’s bad
faith in registering the Domain Name.
The guestbook contains nearly 7,000 entries, some of which include
vulgar messages or links to pornographic content. Respondent characterizes the guestbook as an unmoderated “free
speech forum,” where visitors to the site can post any content under any name
that they choose. While Complainant
alleges that Respondent is responsible for some of the postings to the
guestbook, Complainant offers no evidence that Respondent himself has ever
posted to the forum. Respondent denies
ever having posted to the forum, and offers a list of IP addresses from the
site’s access log to show that none of the postings came from his system.
While
Complainant is correct that some of the statements made by users of the forum
are offensive or inappropriate to certain audiences, Complainant has not
established that any of these statements were made by, or are otherwise
attributable to, the Respondent, or that Respondent edits, moderates, or
otherwise takes responsibility for the content of materials posted in the
guestbook. It would therefore be
inappropriate to hold Respondent responsible for the content of the
guestbook. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.
§ 230(c)(1) ("No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider"); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129
F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (AOL not liable for defamatory statement posted to
various AOL bulletin boards by an AOL subscriber), cert. denied, 524
U.S. 937 (1998). The Panel finds that
the guestbook is not relevant to Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in
the Domain Name or to Respondent’s bad faith.
Finally,
in order to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under Paragraph
4(c)(iii), Respondent must show he had no intent of commercial gain. Respondent states that the site sells no
products, carries no advertising, and generates no revenue. Complainant has made no effort to rebut this
claim, but alleges that Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name for $1,800. Respondent flatly denies ever having made
such offer. Complainant has the burden
of proof in this case and has offered no evidence that this offer ever
occurred. Furthermore, Respondent
properly points out that had such an offer been made by email (as alleged by
Complainant) there should be some record of the offer. The Panel, agreeing that evidence of any
offer for sale is conspicuously absent from Complainant’s lengthy submission,
finds that Respondent has no intent of commercial gain and thus has
demonstrated rights or legitimate interests under Paragraph 4(c)(iii). See Legal & Gen. Group Plc v. Image
Plus, D2002-1019 (WIPO Dec. 30, 2002) (“the goals of the Policy are limited
and do not extend to insulating trademark holders from contrary and critical
views when such views are legitimately expressed without an intention for
commercial gain.”).
Complainant
must satisfy each and every element of Paragraph 4(a) to prevail. Because Respondent has demonstrated rights
under Paragraph 4(c)(iii), this Panel need go no further. The Panel will, however, briefly address
Complainant’s argument that Respondent acted in bad faith under Paragraph
4(a)(iii).
Respondent
cites a great number of cases in which the registration of a domain name
identical to a celebrity’s trademark was found to be in bad faith. In all of these cases, however, the
respondent had some commercial interest in the domain name, whether it was
using the domain name to sell products, display advertisements, or sell the
domain name itself for valuable consideration in excess of documented
out-of-pocket costs. See, e.g., Weil
v. Domain Adm’r, FA 206341 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (respondent used
website to sell complainant’s books for personal profit without permission of
the trademark holder); Spacey v. Alberta Hot Rods, FA 114437 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Aug. 1, 2002) (domain name redirected to commercial “Celebrity 1000
site”); Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. Servability Ltd, D2001-0243
(WIPO Apr. 5, 2001) (respondent, domain name dealer, tried to sell domain at
higher cost); Lee v. Domain Research and Sales, FA 105214 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 1, 2002) (domain name redirected to gambling and pornography site;
respondent requested $2,250 for domain name; respondent engaged in pattern of
registering famous marks); Larson v. Judy Larson Club, FA 96488 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2001) (domain name redirected to commercial “Celebrity 1000
site”); Brown v. Julie Brown Club, D2000-1628 (WIPO Feb. 13, 2001)
(domain name redirected to commercial “Celebrity 1000 site”); Kidman v.
Zuccarini, D2000-1415 (WIPO Jan. 23, 2001) (website advertised pornographic
sites; user was “mousetrapped” upon visiting site; respondent engaged in a
pattern of illegitimate registration and use); Gilmour v. Cenicolla,
D2000-1459 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (respondent intended to use domain name to sell
exclusive merchandise or sell domain name itself); Adu v. Quantum Computer
Servs., Inc., D2000-0794 (WIPO Sep. 26, 2000) (respondent offered
commercial email service at domain name); Technology Prop., Inc. v. Hussain,
FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 14, 2000) (respondent offered domain name for
$2,000); Jagger v. Hammerton, FA 95261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 11, 2000)
(pornographic content for commercial gain); Rudner v. Internetco Corp.,
D2000-0581 (WIPO Aug. 3, 2000) (no content on site, but other sites registered
by Respondent linked to pornographic sites); Charles Jourdan Holding AG v.
AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (respondent offered domain name for
sale); Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (respondent
registered many domain names of well-known celebrities; tried to sell domain
name on eBay for $2,550); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222
(WIPO May 29, 2000) (website contained advertisements; respondent tried to sell
domain name on eBay; advertisements constituted “commercial use” regardless of
lack of net profit by respondent).
There
are also some cases in which Panels have held that “passive” holding of a
domain name – no use at all – amounts to bad faith use. See, e.g., Stam v. Cohen, D2000-1061
(WIPO Nov. 4, 2000); Garnett v. Trap Block Techs., FA 128073 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 21, 2002); Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 16, 2000). This case, however,
does not involve “passive holding.”
In
sum, Respondent has not cited – and this Panel has not found –a single case in
which bad faith was found where the respondent engaged in active use that
consisted of pure, noncommercial speech in the nature of parody or critical
commentary.
As
discussed above, this Panel does not find credible Complainant’s assertion that
Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name for $1,800, and there is no other
evidence that Respondent had any commercial intent in registering or using the
Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent did not act in bad
faith.
DECISION
The Complainant has failed to establish
two of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy. The Panel thus concludes that relief shall
be DENIED.
Michael Albert, Panelist
Dated: Monday, April 5, 2004
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page