Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Michele Dinoia
a/k/a SZK.com
Claim
Number: FA0502000414641
Complainant is Hillary Rodham Clinton (“Complainant”),
represented by James Lamb of Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht and MacKinnon, 1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 300, Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is Michele Dinoia a/k/a SZK.com (“Respondent”), Via Trilussa
11, Pineto, TE, Italy 64025.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <hillaryclinton.com>, registered with OnlineNIC,
Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February
1, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on February 3, 2005.
On
February 3, 2005, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the domain name <hillaryclinton.com> is
registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC,
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
February 7, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of February 28, 2005 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@hillaryclinton.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 National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
March 4, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R.
Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision
based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN
Rules, the National Arbitration 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 <hillaryclinton.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s HILLARY CLINTON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <hillaryclinton.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hillaryclinton.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, is an internationally known political figure who has
received world-wide press coverage since at least 1992 when her husband was
elected President of the United States.
Complainant is a best-selling author and has written four novels
including, “It Takes a Village: and
Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” which was published in 1996 and has sold
622,000 copies, and “Living History,” which has sold 1.68 million hard copies
and 525,000 paperbacks since its 2003 publication. On November 7, 2000, the people of New York elected Complainant
to the United States Senate.
Complainant’s campaign began in 1999 and received substantial media
coverage as the top senate race in the country.
Respondent
registered the <hillaryclinton.com> domain name on October 22,
2001. Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to direct Internet users to a website that displays a generic
search engine, links to commercial websites, and exposes users to pop-up ads
and pay-per-click search results. In addition,
the disputed domain name bookmarks itself as the visitor’s homepage each time
they open their Internet browser.
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
avers that it has common law rights in the HILLARY CLINTON mark.
Under Policy ¶
4(a)(i), a complainant need not hold a registered trademark to establish rights
in a mark. Common law rights are
sufficient when a complainant demonstrates secondary meaning associated with a
mark. See McCarthy on Trademarks and
Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute
resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or
service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a
registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service
mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy);
see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23,
2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and
unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive
registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered
trademarks and service marks”).
In determining
whether or not Complainant has common law rights in the HILLARY CLINTON mark,
the Panel notes that Respondent failed to contest the allegations and the
evidence contained within the Complaint. Due to Respondent’s failure to submit
a response, the Panel has chosen to view the Complaint in a light most
favorable to Complainant, and will accept all reasonable allegations and
inferences in the Complaint as true. See
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA 110830 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is
free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater
weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,
D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a
presumption that complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted
by the evidence).
The Panel finds
that Complainant’s uncontested allegations establish common law rights in the
HILLARY CLINTON mark sufficient to grant standing under the UDRP. Complainant alleges that the HILLARY CLINTON
mark has become distinctive through Complainant’s use and exposure of the mark
in the marketplace and through use of the mark in connection with Complainant’s
political activities, including a successful Senate campaign. See Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO
May 29, 2000) (finding that trademark registration was not necessary and that
the name “Julia Roberts” has sufficient secondary association with complainant
that common law trademark rights exist); see also Estate of Tupac Shakur v. Shakur Info Page, AF-0346 (eResolution
Sept. 28, 2000) (finding that a “person may acquire such a reputation in his or
her own name as to give rise to trademark rights in that name at common law”); see
also Winterson v. Hogarth,
D2000-0235 (WIPO May 22, 2000) (finding that ICANN Policy does not require that
complainant have rights in a registered trademark and that it is sufficient to
show common law rights in holding that complainant has common law rights to her
name); see also Barnes v. Old Barn
Studios Ltd., D2001‑0121 (WIPO Mar. 26, 2001) (all that is required
for a famous or very well-known person to establish a common law trademark is
the likelihood of success in an action for passing off in the event of use in
trade without authority); see also Calvert v. Domain Strategy, Inc., FA 162075
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2003) (transferring the <kencalvert.com> domain
name to Complainant, a U.S. Congressman).
The domain name
registered by Respondent, <hillaryclinton.com>, is identical to
Complainant’s HILLARY CLINTON mark because the only difference between the two
is the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” which is
irrelevant under the Policy. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493
(WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to complainant’s
mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name
POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Sporty's
Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 530 U.S. 1262 (2000) ("For consumers to buy things or
gather information on the Internet, they need an easy way to find particular
companies or brand names. The most common method of locating an unknown domain
name is simply to type in the company name or logo with the suffix .com");
see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135,
1146 (9th
Cir. 2002) (“Internet users searching for a company’s Web site often assume, as
a rule of thumb, that the domain name of a particular company will be the
company name or trademark followed by ‘.com.’”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has
alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s mark. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that
it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima
facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where complainant has
asserted that respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the domain name it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete
evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within
the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC
v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once complainant
asserts that respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the domain, the burden shifts to respondent to provide credible evidence that
substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name);
see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group
Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that
under certain circumstances the mere assertion by complainant that respondent
has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof
to respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does
exist); 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).
Respondent is
using the <hillaryclinton.com> domain name and the goodwill
associated with Complainant’s HILLARY CLINTON mark to direct Internet users to
a website that provides links to commercial websites, displays pop-up
advertisements and offers a generic search engine. Respondent’s use of a domain name is not a use in connection with
a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See eBay Inc. v. Hong,
D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the "use of complainant’s
entire mark in infringing domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate
use"); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that respondent’s diversionary use of
complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which
contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide
offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
disputed domain names); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical
Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that
respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to
commercial websites, unrelated to complainant and presumably with the purpose
of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights
or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v.
Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (finding
that respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to
a search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it
lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Respondent has
offered no evidence and no proof in the record suggests that Respondent is
commonly known by the <hillaryclinton.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO
Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent was
not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission
from complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA
96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
because respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using
the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc.,
FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by
complainant’s marks and respondent has not used the domain names in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the <hillaryclinton.com> domain name in an attempt to
purposely attract Internet users seeking Complainant online to Respondent’s
website. Internet users interested in
Complainant’s products and services are likely to type in Complainant’s mark
followed by the common gTLD “.com.”
Additionally, Respondent presumably derives commercial benefit by
receiving click-through fees for redirecting Internet users to other commercial
websites. The Panel concludes that
Respondent’s attempts to divert Internet users for commercial gain by
attracting these users to Respondent’s website through a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that respondent registered and used the domain name in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because respondent was using the confusingly
similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see
also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that
if respondent profits from its diversionary use of complainant's mark when the
domain name resolves to commercial websites and respondent fails to contest the
Complaint, it may be concluded that respondent is using the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that respondent registered the domain name
<statefarmnews.com> in bad faith because respondent intended to use
complainant’s marks to attract the public to the website without permission
from Complainant).
Complainant has established
that its HILLARY CLINTON mark is famous worldwide. This is evidence that Respondent registered a domain name
identical to Complainant’s mark based on the goodwill associated with
Complainant’s mark. Registration of a
domain name that incorporates Complainant’s mark, despite knowledge of
Complainant’s rights in the mark, is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi
Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002)
(“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably
should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively;”); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be
similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse."); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412
(WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that respondent had actual and constructive
knowledge of complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the
mark and thus respondent registered the domain name in bad faith); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time
of registration).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled 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 <hillaryclinton.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
March 18, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
National Arbitration Forum