Crandell Addington v. Domain Guy
Claim Number: FA0509000560842
PARTIES
Complainant
is Crandell Addington (“Complainant”),
8626 Tesoro Dr., Suite 801, San Antonio, TX 78217. Respondent is Domain Guy (“Respondent”),
11693 San Vicente # 116, Los Angeles, CA 90049.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <crandelladdington.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Richard
Hill as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September
13, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on September 16, 2005.
On
September 14, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <crandelladdington.com>
domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is
the current registrant of the name. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy
Software, 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
September 22, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of October 12, 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@crandelladdington.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 10, 2005.
A
timely Additional Submission was received on October 11, 2005. The Additional Submission complies with
Supplemental Rule 7.
On October 14, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum
appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant
alleges that Crandell Addington is a unique name that has for over forty years
been used as a mark by Complainant (an individual) for commercial activities
associated with the card game known as “poker.” He alleges that the contested domain name is identical to his
name and mark, that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s long use of the mark,
and that Respondent registered and is using the contested domain in bad faith
because it has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to Respondent’s web site, 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 web site or location
or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
alleges that Complainant offers no evidence that the name Crandell Addington
has been registered as trademark or otherwise qualifies as a service mark. Further, it alleges that Complainant offers
no evidence to support the assertion that his name has been used as a mark for
over forty years, and it further alleges that Complainant has offered no
evidence to support his allegation of bad faith registration and use.
C.
Additional Submissions
Complainant
states that his name has acquired common law trademark rights because of its
extensive use in professional poker activities and provides evidence to that
effect. Regarding the matter of bad
faith, Complainant notes that Respondent registered the contested domain name
two days after Complainant was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame and that
the contested domain name offers links to gambling sites, including poker
sites. Further, Complainant alleges
that Respondent, a resident of California, is in violation of The California
Business and Professions Code Article 1.6 17525 (a), which says that it is
unlawful for a person, with a bad faith intent to register, traffic in, or use
a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the personal name of
another living person or deceased personality, without regard to the goods or
services of the parties.
FINDINGS
The card game of poker is, in the USA, a
commercial activity when carried out professionally.
Complainant, Crandell Addington, is a
famous professional poker player. His
activities are such that his name has acquired common law trademark protection.
Respondent registered the contested
domain name two days after Crandell Addington was inducted into the Poker Hall
of Fame.
The contested domain name is being used
to point to gambling sites, including poker sites that are not associated with
Crandell Addington.
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 a 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 contested domain name is clearly
identical to Complainant’s name. The
question that arises here is whether Complainant’s name is protected by
trademark rights. As the Panel noted in
Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May
29, 2000), a person’s name can acquire
common law trademark rights, in particular when the person is well-known in
some commercial field. Such is the case
here. Crandell Addington’s poker-related
activities are such that his name has acquired common law trademark
rights. And it is well established
that, under the Policy, common law rights suffice: registration is not
required.
The Panel holds
that the contested domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law mark.
The Respondent has not argued, much less
presented evidence, to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the
contested domain name. In accordance
with Rule 14(b), the Panel is free to draw such inferences therefrom as it
considers appropriate. In this case,
taking into account the discussion below concerning bad faith and Respondent’s
silence on this point, the Panel considers that Complainant has satisfied its
burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
contested domain name.
According to ¶ 4(b)(iv) of the Policy,
evidence of bad faith registration and use exists if “you have intentionally
attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or
location.”
Complainant provides convincing evidence
to show that such was the case here.
Respondent is clearly attempting to use Complainant’s well-known name to
attract Internet users to Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s well-known mark.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <crandelladdington.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum