Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Judy Larson, Lake Elsinore, CA, USA (Complainant or Ms. Larson) represented by Kristin Ring, of the San Francisco, California office of Coudert Brothers. The Respondent is Judy Larson Club, High Prairie, AB, Canada (Respondent or the Club) represented by Jeff Burgar, a Canadian resident.

The domain name at issue is <judylarson.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. (Network Solutions) of Herndon, Virginia, USA

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially. To the best of his knowledge, the undersigned has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Jonathan Hudis has been selected as the Panelist for this proceeding.

On January 24, 2001 Complainant submitted electronically a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the Forum) for decision in accordance with the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 (the Policy or the UDRP), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (UDRP Rules) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rules (Forum Supp. Rules). See ICANN Rules, ¶ 3(b). The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 22, 2001.

On February 2, 2001, it was confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <judylarson.com> is registered with Network Solutions, and that the named Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions’ 5.0 registration agreement and therefore Respondent (notwithstanding Respondent’s protestations to the contrary) has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.

On February 5, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the Commencement Notification), setting a deadline of February 26, 2001 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@judylarson.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on February 26, 2001.

Complainant submitted an additional response under Forum Supp. Rule 7. This response was received and determined to be complete on March 2, 2001.

On March 2, 2001, Respondent sent an e-mail communication to the Forum, commenting on Complainant’s additional response. Such a communication is not permitted by the Rules or the Forum Supp. Rules. Respondent’s communication was read but not considered by the Panel in reaching its decision. Even if considered by the panel, Respondent’s communication would not have changed the result.

On March 5, 2001, pursuant to parties’ request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed Jonathan Hudis as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Complainant, Judy Larson (or, Ms. Larson) asserts that she is an artist who has developed a substantial following in North America. As a result of her commercial exploitation of her art and her name, Ms. Larson claims that her name has come to be associated with her particular style of high-quality artwork. Ms. Larson contends that she uses her name like a trademark to designate the source of her works. Ms. Larson claims ownership of the right to commercially exploit her name, likeness, and signature under the U.S. Trademark Act and her right of publicity under California state statutory and common law.

Ms. Larson asserts that, on its face, the disputed domain name <judylarson.com> is identical to her given name. Ms. Larson further alleges that under California state law, she has acquired a common law and statutory right of publicity. Moreover, she asserts that Respondent’s use of Ms. Larson’s name violates Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Respondent, it is alleged, has appropriated Ms. Larson’s name without her authorization or consent and is using it in such a manner as to cause the public to believe that Ms. Larson is affiliated with, connected with, associated with, or sponsors, endorses or approves, a web site entitled Celebrity1000.com.

Ms. Larson contends that Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect to the disputed domain name <judylarson.com> because there exists no relationship between Ms. Larson and the Respondent which would give rise to any license, permission or any other relationship of the kind, by which the Respondent could own any domain name incorporating Ms. Larson’s common law and statutory rights in her name. Respondent merely uses the disputed domain name to redirect people to the web site www.Celebrity1000.com, which has nothing to do with Ms. Larson or her artwork. The results of a search of Network Solutions WhoIs database attached to the Complaint shows that Internet North, Jeff Burgar and Justin Lumsden are listed on the registration information for both the domain names <judylarson.com> and <celebrity1000.com>.

Respondent is alleged to have registered and is using the disputed domain name, <judylarson.com>, in bad faith. Ms. Larson states that her name is not a word that would ordinarily be chosen for a domain name unless one was seeking to create the impression of an association with Ms. Larson. Rather, Respondent, it is asserted, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the commercial web site www.Celebrity1000.com, which will lead to mistake and/or deception of the public as to a sponsorship, affiliation, approval, or endorsement by Ms. Larson of that web site.

In addition to Ms. Larson’s name, Mssrs. Burgar, Lumsden and Internet North appear on the WhoIs registration information for other domain names which consist of the names of at least thirteen of Ms. Larson’s artist colleagues. Materials showing this information were attached to the Complaint. The Complaint states that when each of these domain names is typed in, one is automatically redirected to the Celebrity1000.com web site. Respondent does not deny this in its Response. Ms. Larson contends that this further demonstrates that Respondent’s use of Ms. Larson’s name is used solely in an attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the www.Celebrity1000.com web site.

Ms. Larson asserts that Respondent is in no way using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of Ms. Larson’s artwork. Further, it is claimed that Respondent cannot demonstrate that it is making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without the intent of commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers searching for Ms. Larson’s artwork.

It is alleged that the totality of Respondent’s conduct – registration of a domain name using Ms. Larson’s given name, failure to make any use of the disputed domain name in a manner related to Ms. Larson or her artwork, and the fact that the disputed domain name is used to direct Internet user to the www.Celebrity1000.com web site, evidences that Respondent has registered a domain name in bad faith.

In her Reply, Ms. Larson states that Respondent’s representative, Mr. Burgar, should be treated "as Respondent"; and that Mr. Burgar has appeared as a Respondent in several prior domain name arbitrations.

Ms. Larson’s Reply also contends that the registration of the <judylarson.com> domain name has not totally precluded her from registering her name as a domain name, and that she currently uses the <judylarson.net> domain name as her web site address. However, Ms. Larson claims that she has lost business, because clients attempt, as a natural instinct, to locate her site under the .com identifier.

As support for the contention that she has acquired common law trademark rights in her name, Ms. Larson attached to her Reply numerous "hits" (search results) obtained from entering the name "judy larson" within the search criteria of a Lycos search engine search. Some of the hits refer the reader back to portions of Ms. Larson’s web site located at www.judylarson.net. Other hits refer the reader to the web sites of third parties.

Ms. Larson’s Reply also states that Respondent created the Unauthorized Judy Larson Fan Club web site now located at www.judylarson.com only after it received notice of this dispute. Prior to that time, Ms. Larson alleges that respondent used the <judylarson.com> domain name to re-direct Internet user to the www.Celebrity1000.com web site, as stated above. Respondent does not deny this.

Finally, in her Reply, Ms. Larson contends that while the WhoIs contact data listed for the <judylarson.com> domain name may be correct, the registered owner of the domain name, "Judy Larson Club", does not exist and it is in reality Jeff Burgar who is the registrant. Ms. Larson asserts that by providing false identifying information about the true domain name registrant, Respondent has breached its domain name registration agreement with the registrar Network Solutions.

B. Respondent

Respondent, the Judy Larson Club (or the Club) spends nearly the first three pages of the Response, and other passages throughout the Response, criticizing the UDRP in general, and certain prior UDRP decisions in particular. The Club’s comments critical of the ICANN UDRP process were read but not considered by the Panel in reaching its decision. Even if considered by the panel, the Club’s comments critical of the ICANN UDRP process would not have changed the result.

Respondent states that the <judylarson.com> domain name was registered in 1996, yet the URDP did not come into existence until 1999. The Club contends, therefore, that the UDRP should not apply here.

The Club contends that the contact data for the <judylarson.com> domain name was listed properly, and that neither Complainant nor the Forum had any problem locating Respondent.

The Club challenges Complainant’s contention that she has acquired trademark rights in her name. The Club further asserts that "Judy Larson" is a common name probably used by others throughout the world. The Club also contends that neither the U.S. Trademark Act nor California’s right of publicity laws apply to it, a Canadian entity.

The Club asserts that the addition of the .com suffix distinguishes the <judylarson.com> domain name from the Judy Larson name of Complainant. The Club analogizes its use of the <judylarson.com> domain name as being akin to that of a book title, magazine article, or newspaper headline, which the Club contends are not impermissible uses. So, according to Respondent, while the <judylarson.com> domain name and the Judy Larson name are "textually identical", they are "conceptually different".

The Club asserts that the <judylarson.com> domain name and the Judy Larson name are not used for identical services. The Club does not deny that the <judylarson.com> domain name at one time was used to redirect Internet users to the web site www.Celebrity1000.com, but that there has been no proof of actual confusion. Respondent asserts that Internet users are sufficiently sophisticated such that the Club’s use of the <judylarson.com> is not likely to cause confusion. Further, says Respondent, both the web site www.Celebrity1000.com and the web site located under the domain name <judylarson.com> contain prominent disclaimers stating that these sites are not affiliated or endorsed by any particular individuals.

The Club challenges Complainant’s assertion that "re-direction" (using one domain name or URL to re-direct the Internet user to another web site not originally intended to be visited by the Internet user) is not a legitimate use of a domain name. In any event, the "current" use of the <judylarson.com> domain name, states the Club, is proper. The web site located at the URL http://www.judylarson.com currently has a brief biography of Ms. Larson, a sample listing of her works, and links to official or otherwise sponsored web sites relating to Ms. Larson and her lithographic art works.

The Club concedes that the <judylarson.com> domain name was used to re-direct Internet users to the web site www.Celebrity1000.com which is commercial, but that today the web site located under the domain name <judylarson.com> is non-commercial.

The Club states that it has intentions of building over 200 web sites about celebrities. The Club states that this is a legitimate use of domain names and that this is not registration or use of domain names in bad faith. The Club does not deny the assertions made by Complainant that the Club, or the Club’s representatives including Jeffrey Burgar, have registered as domain names the names of numerous other artists or celebrities. In fact, "Respondent makes no apologies" for engaging in this practice. The Club states that it is entitled to engage in this practice as acts of freedom of expression – the creation of fan appreciation web sites.

The Club states that it has not engaged in other acts of bad faith, such as offering to sell the contested domain name, preventing Complainant from using her name in a corresponding domain name, disrupting the business of a competitor, or to create a likelihood of confusion or to tarnish Complainant’s reputation.

The Club’s alleged use of the domain name <judylarson.com> for over five years, says Respondent, shows that it has acquired common law rights in the domain name and that it has come to be known by the domain name.

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:

The following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

On the other hand, any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the registrant’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name:

Policy, ¶ 4(c).

The Club, because it registered its domain name with Network Solutions prior to the implementation of the UDRP, challenges its application in this instance. Earlier and current versions of Network Solutions’ domain name dispute resolution policies were attached to Ms. Larson’s paper submissions to the Forum. Network Solutions’ domain name dispute policies state that domain name registrants shall agree to modifications of such policies that will occur from time to time. While the <judylarson.com> domain name was registered prior to the implementation of the UDRP, Respondent maintained its registration of the contested domain name after the UDRP was implemented and made applicable to domain names registered with Network Solutions. Therefore, the UDRP applies to this proceeding.

The Club’s criticisms of the ICANN UDRP process in general, and specific Panel decisions rendered pursuant to the UDRP in particular (due to alleged bias or the inappropriate make-up of the Panels) are not appropriate in this administrative proceeding. These types of criticisms should be directed to the ICANN Board of Directors and Staff.

Before the Panel can continue with its analysis under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it must first decide whether Ms. Larson has rights to protect. Ms. Larson’s Complaint and Reply chiefly rely on the right of publicity protections afforded by California State law. Only as an afterthought does Ms. Larson assert that the Club’s actions violate the U.S. Trademark Act, with respect to unregistered designations of origin, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

The Club challenges the application of California or U.S. trademark law to this proceeding, in that the Club alleges to be a Canadian entity. It is the UDRP that applies here, and the Panel will apply the standards of the UDRP and prior UDRP Panel decisions in its analysis.

First, the very text of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy states that it is only applicable to "trademark[s] and service mark[s] in which the complainant has rights". Second, if this were not clear enough, paragraph 4.1(c) of the staff report accompanying the implementation of the UDRP states "[e]xcept in cases involving ‘abusive registrations’ with bad-faith intent to profit commercially from others’ trademarks … the adopted policy leaves the resolution of disputes to the courts." (see, http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm). Third, the Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, dated April 30, 1999, from which the UDRP has its origins, at page 51 states "registrations that violate trade names, geographical indications or personality rights would not be considered to fall within the definition of abusive registration for the purposes of the administrative procedure." (see,

http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/final/FinalReport.html).

Thus, unless the evidence shows that Ms. Larson has acquired trademark or service mark rights in her name, the UDRP does not apply to this proceeding. This is not to say, however, that artists, performers, and the like, generally cannot acquire trademark or service mark rights in their names.

In fact, a growing line of UDRP panel decisions have held that artists, performers, and the like, can acquire protectable rights in their names under the UDRP, if their names have been used and/or are recognized as indicators of the origin of their goods or services, even if they do not own registered trademarks. Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) <juliaroberts.com> (acting services); Rudner v. Internetco Corp., D2000-0581 (WIPO August 3, 2000) <ritarudner.com> (comedy entertainment services); Jagger v. Hammerton, FA 95261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) <mickjagger.com> (musical entertainment services); Estate of Tupac Shakur v. Shakur Info. Page, AF-0346 (eResolution September 28, 2000) <tupacshakur.org> (hip-hop musical services); Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000) <madonna.com> (music and entertainment services); Julie Brown v. Julie Brown Club, D2000-1628 (WIPO Feb. 13, 2001) <juliebrown.com> (acting, scriptwriting, and musical entertainment services); Dion and Sony Music Entertainment (Canada) Inc. v. Burgar o/a Celine Dion Club, D2000-1838 (WIPO Feb. 13, 2001) <celinedion.com> (musical entertainment services).

On the other hand, where a person’s name is not being used as an indicator of the origin of his or her goods or services, or if the person’s stage name also is, and is being used as, a common word of ordinary vernacular, the person’s name is not the subject of protectable rights under the UDRP. See, Sun Int’l Resorts, Inc. v. Najar, D2000-1349 (WIPO Feb. 13, 2001) <solkerzner.com> (mere nickname, not used in connection with a product or service); Sumner p/k/a Sting v. Urvan, D2000-0596 (WIPO July 24, 2000) <sting.com> ("Although it is accepted that the Complainant is world famous under the name STING, it does not follow that he has rights in STING as a trademark or service mark. … [T]he personal name in this case is also a common word in the English language, with a number of different meanings".).

As guidance, the Panel looks to U.S. Trademark Law with respect to the definition of a "trademark". A trademark is defined therein as "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof … used by a person … to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown." 15 U.S.C. § 1127. A similar definition is provided under Canadian Trade-mark Law, which refers to a "trade-mark" as "a mark that is used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by him from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by others." Canadian Trade-marks Act, R.S., c. T-13, § 2.

It was not an easy task for the Panel to decide whether Ms. Larson has trademark or service mark rights in her name, sufficient for protection under the UDRP. Further, Ms. Larson’s submissions fell far short of assisting her case.

On the one hand, as stated above, the UDRP, in its current form, was not devised for the protection of personality rights unless the qualitative and quantitative use of the person’s name rises to the level of trademark or service mark use - and that use is recognized by the public as such. To the extent that Ms. Larson asserts personality rights or rights of publicity in this proceeding, they cannot be recognized in this forum at this time.

On the other hand, to the extent that Ms. Larson asserts trademark rights in her name, the only proof of such rights is the Lycos search results she submitted. Without more, the mechanical listing of "hits" from a search engine containing the words "judy larson" does not establish trademark rights. Many of the "hits" revert back to Ms. Larson’s presently existing web site, under the domain name <judylarson.net> . Other "hits" refer the user to third party sites, but there is insufficient information from the search results to determine whether "Judy Larson" is recognized as an indicator of the source of products.

Fortunately for Ms. Larson, and unfortunately for the Club, the evidence submitted by Jeff Burgar (Respondent’s representative) comes to Ms. Larson’s rescue. In its current form, the <judylarson.com> web site is a "fan appreciation" site. Unlike the domain name at issue in Sumner, "judy larson" is not a common word or phrase of ordinary vernacular, and it is not being used by the Club as such. The Club’s web site describes Ms. Larson’s 17 year history as being devoted to the art of painting. Ms. Larson is described as having an "artistic style towards animal paintings". The site provides a sample listing of numerous art works that Ms. Larson has done, and provides links not only to Ms. Larson’s <judylarson.net> web site, but also to the web sites of galleries where Ms. Larson’s art work has been or is being shown.

The Club having linked the <judylarson.com> web site to Ms. Larson’s <judylarson.net> web site, the Panel took the liberty of reviewing Ms. Larson’s web site as well. Her site creates a nexus between her name and the lithograph art works she has created and offers for sale. Ms. Larson’s site also provides references to several other galleries where her art works have been or are being shown.

Thus, the Club has provided the Panel with evidence that Ms. Larson uses her name as a trademark, and that it is recognized by at least the Club and art galleries as an indicator of the source of her artwork. See, Tall Oaks Publishing, Inc. and Slejko v. National Trade Publications, Inc., FA 94346 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2000) <ultrapurewater.com> (actions taken by a party opponent can constitute an admission that the Complainant’s asserted mark has achieved at least some level of recognition and distinctiveness). Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

The Club asserts that the addition of the .com suffix distinguishes the <judylarson.com> domain name from the Judy Larson name of Complainant. Such contentions have been rejected by previous UDRP panels, see, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crews, D2000-0580 (WIPO Aug. 30, 2000) <superwal-mart.com> (The 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. Respondent has not, by adding a common descriptive term (such as "super") preceding Complainant's mark, created a new or different mark in which it has rights or legitimate interests.). The Club’s contentions in this regard are similarly rejected here.

The Panel finds that the domain name <judylarson.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Ms. Larson has rights. Policy, ¶ 4(a)(i)

The Club’s contention that "prominent" disclaimers on the www.Celebrity1000.com and www.judylarson.com web sites preclude Internet users from being confused is rejected. First, the disclaimers are anything but prominent. They are written in miniscule type face, and can easily be missed because they are printed immediately beneath large, colorful banners. Second, the disclaimers in no way preclude "initial interest confusion", which occurs when an Internet user directs his or her web browser to a particular site under a logically assumed domain name – only to find on arrival that the site has no relationship to the intended source. By the time the user arrives at the erroneous site, before the disclaimer is read or acted upon, confusion already has occurred.

The Panel does not find that the Club has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the contested domain name. Before any notice to the Club of this dispute, the Club did not make use of, or have 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. The Panel does not find the Club’s prior re-direction of Internet users to the www.Celebrity1000.com site to be a legitimate use of the <judylarson.com> domain name.

Even though the Club has had the contested <judylarson.com> domain name registered in its name since 1996, there is no evidence that the Club has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in the domain name. In fact, after being challenged by Ms. Larson, the Club has not come forward with any evidence of its very existence, separate and apart from being the named registrant for the contested domain name.

The Panel does find that the Club’s prior use of the <judylarson.com> domain name to re-direct Internet users to the www.Celebrity1000.com site not to be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, and that it was being used with the intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. The current use of the <judylarson.com> domain name is being done with the intent to misleadingly divert consumers – even though there does not appear at this time to be an obvious profit motive in doing so. However, the <judylarson.com> domain name could be reverted back to its prior use at any time. The Panel has reviewed the other published UDRP decisions in which Mr. Burgar or entities with which he has been affiliated have been parties. It appears that Mr. Burgar and his affiliated entities have engaged in a pattern of behavior similar to that which is being alleged in this proceeding.

The present Panel has read the majority and dissenting decisions of a prior UDRP Panel in Springsteen v. Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club, D2000-1532 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2001), and finds the reasoning of the majority to be fatally flawed. Mere random "hits" from search engines resulting in numerous references to Bruce Springsteen do not detract from the power of a direct, identical spelling of that name or mark to be capable of acquiring trademark rights. In fact, the very re-direction strategy that the majority in Springsteen recognizes as "not an intent, for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers" is the very behavior that this Panel believes violates the UDRP. Policy, ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Finally, the Panel finds that the contested domain name <judylarson.com> has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy, ¶ 4(a)(iii).

As the Club has not offered to sell the domain name, the circumstances of ¶ 4(b)(i) do not herein apply. Although Ms. Larson has been able to register her name with the less desirable .net extension, the Club’s registration of the <judylarson.com> domain name has prevented Ms. Larson reflecting her name in which she has trademark rights in the most logical corresponding .com domain name by which Internet users would find Ms. Larson on the Internet. The proofs submitted with Ms. Larson’s papers, and the prior Brown, Dion, and Springsteen decisions demonstrate that entities affiliated with the Club’s representative, Jeff Burgar, have engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Therefore, the circumstances of ¶ 4(b)(ii) do apply here.

The suggestion of the majority opinion in Springsteen that, for a finding of bad faith, Respondent would have had to register multitudes of domain names using variations of "judy larson" (such as <judy-larson.com>, <judylarson.org>, <judy-larson.net>, etc.), so that Ms. Larson would have been completely prohibited from registering her name in a corresponding domain name, is soundly rejected. Such logic results from a tortured reading of the Policy.

The present use made of the <judylarson.com> domain name shows that the parties are "competitors", in the sense that they are competing for Internet users’ attention to the art works of Judy Larson. While Ms. Larson and the Club are not competitors in the sense of promoting for sale competitive art works, they are competitors for the inquisitive eyes of Internet users. Thus, the Club has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Therefore, the circumstances of ¶ 4(b)(iii) do apply here.

Again disagreeing with the reasoning of the majority in Springsteen, the Club’s past and able-to-be-repeated use of the <judylarson.com> domain name intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Club’s web site or other on-line location, www.Celebrity1000.com, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Ms. Larson’s name and mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the the Club’s web site or location, or of a product or service on his web site or location. Therefore, the circumstances of ¶ 4(b)(iv) do apply here. The suggestion of the majority in Springsteen that Internet users would not attempt to locate a web site by the most logical .com domain name, the exact spelling of an artist’s name, defies logic and the commonly understood methods by which people use the Internet.

The Panel finds, as additional circumstances of bad faith, (i) that the Club revised its use of the domain name <judylarson.com> as an Internet URL after being notified of the commencement of this arbitration proceeding – specifically in an attempt, it appears, to avoid being found in violation of the Policy; and (ii) that the contested domain name was registered under the name of a fictitious entity that does not appear to exist.

Based upon the foregoing, the Panel directs that the domain name <judylarson.com> be TRANSFERRED to Complainant, Judy Larson.