|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Marcus R. Schatte d/b/a Sex v. Personal
Claim Number: FA0209000124756
PARTIES
Complainant is Marcus R. Schatte a/k/a Sex, Houston, TX, USA
(“Complainant”). Respondent is Personal, Osan-si Kyounggi-do, KOREA
(“Respondent”) represented by Kijoong Kim.
The domain name at issue is <sex.biz>, registered with Gabia 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.
Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the
Panelist.
Complainant has standing to file a
Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint, as it timely filed the
required Intellectual
Property (IP) Claim Form with the Registry Operator,
NeuLevel. As an IP Claimant,
Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against Respondent
with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel
and with the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”).
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
Forum electronically on September 9, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of
the Complaint
on September 12, 2002.
On September 12, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”),
setting a deadline of October 2, 2002 by which Respondent could
file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in
compliance
with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy
(the “STOP Rules”).
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on September 30, 2002.
Complainant filed an Additional
Submission in a timely manner on October 3, 2002. Respondent also filed an Additional Submission in a timely manner
on October 7, 2002.
On October 15,
2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Judge Irving H. Perluss
(Retired) as the single Panelist.
Transfer of the domain name from
Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1.
Complainant
is the owner of the following trademarks and service marks registered with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”):
a.
Mark: SEX –
USPTO Registration No. 2555983, registered April 2, 2002 – Principal Register. IC 009. US 020 023 026 036 038. G & S:
Magnets, namely, decorative refrigerator magnets.
b.
Mark: SEX –
USPTO Registration No. 2518885, registered December 11, 2001 – Supplemental
Register. IC 041. US 100 101 107. G&S: development and
dissemination of educational materials of others in the fields of human
sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases
via audio, visual and printed
media, and online via a global computer network.
c.
Mark:
SEX: USPTO Registration No. 2518886,
registered December 11, 2001 – Supplemental Register. IC 041. US 100 101
107. G&S: development and dissemination of educational materials of others
in the fields of human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases
via audio,
visual and printed media, and online via a global computer network.
d.
Mark: SEX –
USPTO Serial No. 78118212, registered December 11, 2001 – Principal
Register. IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S:
Magnets, namely, decorative refrigerator magnets.
e.
Mark: SEX – USPTO Serial No. 78118233 – filed as
ITU, on March 28, 2002 – Principal Register.
IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029
037 038 050. G& S: Paperweights.
2.
The domain
name <sex.biz> identically matches the SEX trademarks and service marks strings in which the
Complainant has rights, namely, USPTO Registration Nos. 2555983, 2518885,
2518886,
and USPTO Serial Nos. 78118212 and 78118233. The domain name <sex.biz> also identically matches
the SEX trade name under which
Complainant has continually operated in commerce since Feb. 19, 2001, and for
which the Complainant has received
a certificate of operation under Assumed
Name to operate under the name sex. This certificate was filed with the County
Clerk, Harris County, Texas, on 08/26/02.
3.
Complainant’s
business has continuously operated since Feb. 19, 2001, and provides goods in
the way of a line of decorative refrigerator
magnets and services in the way of
development and dissemination of education materials in the fields of human
sexuality and sexually
transmitted diseases for use by medical professionals
and lay persons including provision of Internet resources and laminated
education
resource cards. All goods,
letterheads, business cards, bill of sale and promotional materials used by
Complainant’s business prominently display
the Complainant’s SEX marks. Complainant’s business is currently developing a line of
paperweights to add to its product line also.
Complainant’s business intends to use the domain name <sex.biz>
for bona fide business purposes on the Internet to sell Complainant’s services and
its goods beginning with its line of decorative
refrigerator magnets.
4.
Although
the mark SEX may be generic, Complainant demonstrated to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office that there is a distinctive,
unique or secondary
meaning to the mark and was granted full registration.
5.
Complainant
has met its burden under STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
6.
Complainant
has made extensive searches and there is no evidence whatever of applications
or registrations for trademarks, service
marks or trade names by Respondent
under his actual name or related names in Korea or the United States. Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent
is not in compliance with STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
7.
It was
found in another STOP proceeding, Philatelic.Com v. Peter I. Jeong,
FA 112547 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2002), that Respondent, under his real
name, admitted to having no rights or interest in the
disputed domain name.
8.
In any
event, under STOP procedures, the potential registrant receives a notice of a
pre-filed IP Claim, which is a warning of a conflict
over intellectual property
rights. With full knowledge of
Complainant’s detailed IP Claims, Respondent had to affirmatively reply to the
Registry to proceed with his
application for <sex.biz>. Only after registering the domain name <sex.biz>
much later does Respondent even claim to have started preparations for
use. Additionally, the fact that
Respondent registered <sex.biz> under the name “Personal” does not
suggest he intended to use the domain name for a bona fide business use. Further, Respondent is not in compliance
with STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
9.
Respondent
registered the domain name <sex.biz> primarily for the purpose of
selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
Complainant or to a
competitor of Complainant for valuable consideration in
excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to
the
domain name <sex.biz>, thus violating STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
10.
Due to the
unique nature of the .BIZ IP Claim system, Respondent was clearly informed, as
were all applications for disputed names,
by the .BIZ Registry (well in advance
of Respondent’s registration of <sex.biz>) of all IP Claims and
details including IP Claimants’ names and details of their marks against the
registration of <sex.biz>.
There cannot be any question therefore that in this case Respondent
proceeded in the face of knowledge of Complainant’s trademark
rights. To so proceed, in the absence of any claim
to rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, constitutes bad
faith. Complainant states that
Respondent unquestionably knew, well in advance of his registration of <sex.biz>
on 3/27/02, of Claimant’s marks and intellectual property rights in the
disputed name and consciously and in bad faith affirmed with
the Registry,
NeuLevel, his intention to proceed with his application for the name despite
full disclosure of Complainant’s intellectual
property rights, disputes and
claims by Complainant through the .BIZ IP Claim service.
11.
Respondent
demonstrated bad faith in his registration of <sex.biz> in
additional ways. He registered <sex.biz>
under the name “Personal” which violates .BIZ Registration Requirements (pg.
2.-1.a.).
12.
If
Respondent uses the domain name <sex.biz> for a website, and it
can be assumed that he eventually will, Respondent will intentionally attempt
to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to Respondent’s website or
other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s marks
as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s
website or location.
13.
It is
evident that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under
STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
1.
This
proceeding should be conducted in the Korean language, as Respondent is Korean,
and much of the evidence is documented in Korean.
2.
The
disputed domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights. But the effect
of Complainant’s rights concerning the SEX mark is limited to the United States
of America. Therefore, Complainant may
not claim his right against Respondent residing in Korea.
3.
The word “sex” is a generic term. Furthermore, “sex” is used generally by people all around the world. For this reason, many of the countries in
the world do not allow the registration of the trademark on “sex.”
Respondent can only speculate that the United States Patent and
Trademark Office determined that Complainant had a secondary meaning
for
specific goods or services under the name of “sex” mark. If then, the
Complainant’s trademark is only effective for the specific goods and services
which acquired a secondary meaning and
within the scope of the region.
4.
The
disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2002, and thereafter
Respondent worked out a concrete business plan and invited
investors as a
preparatory stage to start a business.
In other words, before any notice to Respondent of this dispute,
Respondent had made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed
domain name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent ordered the designing of a
website for <sex.biz> on April 30, 2002, from Korean Space Image,
a private business of Ko, Sokju with its business office at Bukbu 462-23,
Yangsan, South
Kyongsang-do Province, Korea, the purpose of which is designing
websites and providing web-hosting services.
5.
Respondent
could not proceed further until September 12, 2002, when the “hold” on the disputed
domain name was released by NeuLevel,
Inc.
6.
Respondent
was mapping out a joint business plan with a Dutch man called Randolf von Gans
who was planning a business using the domain
names of <sexin> and
<lovein>. Respondent received a
business plan and sent Respondent’s business plan to Randolf. But after it became clear that the business
plan of Randolf was finally to sell the domain names, Respondent stopped the
joint business
plan consultation with Randolf notifying him that Respondent had
no intent to sell the disputed domain
name.
7.
After the
registration of the disputed domain name, Respondent tried to find investors
for the business he was mapping out using the
disputed domain name. Respondent placed an advertisement on a
website of a business establishment consulting and investment brokerage
company, called BusinessUN
Co., Ltd. and with the website
<businessun.com/hslee/html/index.html>.
Following the request of Respondent, Hyungseok Lee, a business
establishment of this company put an advertisement titled “Invest in
sex.biz”
on the menu of “Recommended business of Hyungseok Lee” inviting investors to
Respondent’s business. This
advertisement was placed on May 7, 2002, before Respondent received the Notification
of this Complaint. The contents of the
advertisement are as follows:
“Cooperation proposals came in Germany and Italy. A Dutch, who manages around 160 sex-related
sites, offered one-to-one cooperation. . . . In no time, the site development
will be
launched. If you are interested
in it, don’t miss this chance. The
earlier the participation is, the more advantage you will get. Your share will be guaranteed, it will
become a hub site. Investment will be
maximum 3000 million won and minimum 50 million won. It is expected to make 200% profits in a year and 400% in two
year. . .”.
8.
After the
registration of <sex.biz>, Respondent received offers over 10
times to sell the domain name, but Respondent rejected them all replying that <sex.biz>
would be used for the business being planned by Respondent and investment in
the business would be welcome.
9.
For the
reasons above, it is evident that before any notice to Respondent of this
dispute, Respondent had made demonstrable preparations
to use the disputed
domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and,
therefore, Respondent has rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name.
10.
Before any
notice to Respondent of the Complaint, Respondent knew neither about the
Complainant nor about the trademark of Complainant,
because Complainant is a
totally unknown person in Korea and the word “sex” is a generic term.
Moreover, a Korean could not consider the term “sex” as a trademark of other persons because the term “sex” is viewed as being contrary to
public morals or a breach of law. There
is no evidence that Complainant’s trademarks are famous. The earliest trademark of Complainant was
filed on August 15, 2001, just several months before the start of IP Claim
service by NeuLevel,
Inc., and it was registered on January 8, 2002, after the
registration of the disputed domain name.
Respondent clearly rejected all offers for transactions of the disputed
domain name including an offer from Complainant.
11.
It is
unreasonable to infer that Respondent had actual knowledge about Complainant’s
trademark by the IP Claim Notice only.
Respondent, as a resident of a non-English speaking country, is not good
at English. Also, the IP Claim Notice
is hard to understand for Respondent and is a very long document. According to the Notice, IP Claims related
to <sex.biz> are as many as twenty, and this Notice consists of
fourteen pages.
12.
Complainant
charges that Respondent inserted an ad for investment on
<businessun.com>. However, that
is not the case of an advertisement for domain sales, lease or transfer. It is only for invitation of investment to <sex.biz>
with the opinion of high returns by Hyungseok Lee, a business establishment
consultant.
C.
Complainant’s Additional Submission
1.
In reply to
Respondent’s contention that it is unfair to have this proceeding in English
rather than in Korean, it is evident that
Respondent and the law firm that
represents him have an excellent command of the English language. Moreover, the proceeding is proper under the
STOP Rules. Finally, the disputed
domain name is in English.
2.
Respondent
states that “the effect of Complainant’s rights about ‘sex’ mark is limited in
United States of America” and “Therefore
the Complainant may not claim his
rights against Respondent residing in Korea.”
This position is not supported by numerous previously decided
cases. The fact that Complainant has
multiple marks for the term SEX in the United States does not in any way
diminish his rights in these
proceedings against the Respondent in Korea. It is to be noted that we are concerned with
an Internet domain name with a global reach.
3.
Complainant
strongly asserts that the cases cited in the Complaint along with common sense
lead to only one conclusion; the date of
notice of this dispute occurred no later
than the date of the .BIZ IP Claims Notice to Respondent long before he
registered the disputed
name and claims to have made plans to use it. The Respondent therefore has failed to
demonstrate any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name under STOP
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
4.
Respondent
has no legitimate evidence sufficient to satisfy any of the provisions detailed
under STOP Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), 4(c)(ii),
or 4(c)(iii), since he has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Panel found in Philatelic.Com
v. Peter J. Jeong. He does
not own any trademark or service mark that is identical to the domain name; he
has not produced valid evidence that he prepared
to use the domain name or a
name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services before
any notice to Respondent of the dispute, and he, as
an individual, business, or other organization, has not shown that Respondent
has been commonly known by the domain name, even if he had acquired no
trademark or service mark rights.
5.
The entire
exchange between Mr. Jeong with one von Gans in no way can be considered a
“joint business plan” or any type of business
plan in any way related to <sex.biz>. It deals with a set of domain names (the von
Gans’ names) totally unrelated to <sex.biz> and a totally
unrelated business concept for the use of those unrelated domain names and
which Mr. von Gans wishes to sell.
6.
Respondent
has provided no legitimate proof that he had been “mapping out” any business
related to <sex.biz> at all.
He claims he attempted to “find out investors” by placing an
“advertisement” which he requested from a business establishment consultant,
Hyungseok Lee. Respondent admits in his
Response to placing this “advertisement” and quotes it in the Response, but
leaves out the critical final
section in his quote – “As the M&A is
intended in two years, you can make a large sum of money earlier than
expected.” Complainant charges that
this “advertisement” provides absolute proof that Respondent registered the
name <sex.biz> in bad faith since he openly advertised his plans
for a Merger and Acquisition (to sell, rent, or transfer the domain name for
huge
profit) in two years, but not before taking in millions of dollars from
“investors” first.
7.
With
respect to an “ad” inserted by Respondent on <businessun.com>, he
states: “However, that’s not the case
of advertisement for domain sales, lease or transfer. It’s only for invitation of investment to sex.biz with the
opinion of high returns by Hyungseok Lee, a business establishment
consultant.” The critical issue here
that Respondent did not mention is the Respondent’s publicly stated plan in the
“ad” for a M&A (merger
and acquisition) in two years. It is clear that Respondent primarily and
openly intended to sell, lease or transfer the <sex.biz>
registration for high profits far in excess of his costs in two years thus
proving Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed
domain name
according to the terms of STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
D.
Respondent’s Additional Submission
1.
The IP
Claim notice is not “any Notice of Dispute” pursuant to STOP Rule Paragraph
4(c)(ii). The notice given is not
guaranteed, and is provided for information purposes only.
2.
If
Respondent had no business plan in the name of <sex.biz>, why did
the Respondent seek to use immediately the domain name, <sex.biz>,
in spite of conflict with NeuLevel, Inc.?
If Respondent has no interests about <sex.biz>, why is
Respondent actively responding to the disputes over <sex.biz> with
increasing costs?
3.
In the UDRP
and STOP dispute resolution systems, the nature of trademark of Complainant
would show or define whether or not Respondent
registered the domain name with
bad faith. Disregarding whether the
Complainant had the registered trademark right or not, it is not proper for
Complainant to claim exclusive
rights to a domain name that consists of a
generic word. Therefore, the domain
name merely consists of a common generic word that can be registered by the
Respondent or any other natural
person or corporation on the basis of
first-come, first-served. The
registration of merely a common generic word or descriptive mark is not bad
faith registration. Furthermore,
according to the Complainant, there are numerous claims for the word “sex” just in the United States. In this situation, who can assert his or her
exclusive right about the SEX mark?
Respondent complains that the arbitration
hearing is being conducted in the English language rather than Korean, and
that, accordingly,
is unfair.
The simple answer to this Complaint is
that the disputed domain name <sex.biz> is in the English
language. It is appropriate,
accordingly, to utilize the English language in the arbitration proceedings.
Paragraph 15(a) of
the STOP 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 STOP Policy
requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements
to obtain an order
that a domain name should be transferred:
(1)
the domain
name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights; and
(2)
the Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3)
the domain
name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Due to the common authority of the ICANN
policy governing both the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(“UDRP”) and these
STOP proceedings, the Panel will exercise its discretion to
rely on relevant UDRP precedent where applicable.
STOP POLICY ¶ 4(a)(i)
Under the STOP proceedings, a STOP
Complaint may only be filed when the domain name in dispute is identical to a
trademark or service
mark for which a Complainant has registered an
Intellectual Property (“IP”) claim form.
Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily involves a disputed domain
name that is identical to a trademark or service mark in which
a complainant
asserts rights. The existence of the
“.biz” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name is not a
factor for purposes of determining
that a disputed domain name is not identical
to the mark in which the Complainant asserts rights.
Unlike domain name disputes brought under
the UDRP, STOP claims require that the disputed domain name be identical to a trademark or service mark
in which the Complainant holds rights.
A domain name that is merely confusingly
similar to a mark cannot be transferred through a STOP claim (although the
holder of a non-identical but similar mark could bring a UDRP
complaint when
the domain name eventually clears any other pending STOP complaints). See Commonwealth Bank v. Rauch, FA
102729 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2002) (finding that the Complainant failed to
establish rights in <cominvest.biz> pursuant
to STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
because its COMMINVEST mark was not identical to “cominvest” or <cominvest.biz>).
Here, the evidence establishes conclusively
that the Complainant has five registrations in the United States Patent and
Trademark
Office for the mark SEX which are identical to the domain name <sex.biz>,
and the Panel so finds and concludes.
STOP POLICY ¶ 4(a)(ii)
STOP Policy Paragraph 4(c) functions
similarly to UDPR Paragraph 4(c) in providing ways for a Respondent to
demonstrate its rights
or legitimate interests in a domain name.
Under STOP Policy Paragraph 4(c), the
Respondent may demonstrate its rights or interests by proving:
i.
The
Respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is
identical to the domain name;
or
ii.
Before any
notice to the Respondent of the dispute, its 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
iii.
The
Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been
commonly known by the domain name, even though it has
acquired no trademark or
service mark rights.
Respondent has submitted no evidence
whatever to establish that it falls within STOP Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), and
the Panel finds
and concludes that Respondent has not so demonstrated.
With respect to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii),
Respondent contends that he has made demonstrable preparations to use the
subject domain name
before any notice to him of the dispute.
This is the critical issue in this
proceeding.
Respondent contends that he ordered the
design of a website and had worked out a concrete business plan with a Dutch
person, one Randolf
van Gans. The
difficulty is, however, that the ordering of the website demand took place after
the STOP IP notice, and Mr. van Gans wanted to sell his domain names, and did
not want to enter into a joint venture with Respondent.
Respondent also contends that his
“demonstrable preparations” include advertising for investors.
It is doubtful whether a business plan
can be based on an advertisement for investors, but, in any event, this was
subsequent to the
IP notice.
Accordingly, the Panel finds and
concludes that Respondent does not fall within STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). There were no demonstrable bona fide
preparations to use the subject domain name for a bona fide offering of goods
or services, “.
. . Before any notice to Respondent of the dispute. . . .”
Respondent does not have a legitimate
interest or rights to the subject domain name.[1]
STOP POLICY ¶ 4(a)(iii)
STOP
Policy Paragraph 4(b) provides for non-exclusive examples of circumstances
that, if proven, will satisfy the bad faith requirement
of STOP Policy
Paragraph 4(a)(iii).
To establish bad faith under the STOP
Policy, the Complainant need only prove either
registration or use of the domain
name in bad faith, not both as the UDRP requires.
STOP claims differ from UDRP claims in
one very significant and fundamental way.
Unlike the UDRP, under STOP when a registrant (Respondent) registers a
domain name for which an IP Claim was previously filed, the
registrant is notified
of the potential for trademark infringement before being allowed to proceed
with the registration. One Panel has
recognized that registration of a domain name, despite such notice in
appropriate circumstances, could “almost preclude
any possibility of
registration in good faith of a domain name. . . .” See Gene Logic Inc. v. Bock, FA 103042
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2002) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered
the <genelogic.biz> domain name “with
full knowledge that his intended
business use of this domain name was in direct conflict with a registered
trademark of a known competitor
in exactly the same field of business”).
Under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), a
complainant may demonstrate a respondent’s bad faith by showing that respondent
registered the domain
name for the purpose of preventing complainant from
registering domain names that reflect its mark(s), provided respondent has
engaged
in a pattern of such conduct.
Under STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), the Complainant may similarly prove bad
faith by showing the Respondent registered the domain name for
the purpose of
preventing Complainant from registering domain names reflecting its
mark(s). However, under the STOP
provision, there is no “pattern” of conduct requirement. Thus, Panels have found bad faith under STOP
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) when only one domain name was at issue and no prior history
of trademark
infringement was established.
See Peachtree Software v. Scarponi, FA 102781 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jan. 23, 2002) (finding bad faith under STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), noting that it
was reasonable to conclude
Respondent registered <peachtree.biz> with the
intent to prevent Complainant from reflecting its PEACHTREE mark in a
corresponding
domain name, given Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s mark
and Respondent’s lack of rights or interests in the mark).
Here, there is a legal presumption of bad
faith, because of Complainant’s existent registration of its marks with the
United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Respondent reasonably should have
been aware of Complainant’s marks, actually or constructively.[2]
There is no valid proof to the contrary.
In Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix,
Inc., [1999] USCA9 357; 184 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. Or. 1999) it was
said:
However, ISS became aware of the ‘EPIX’
trademark when it applied for its own registration of ‘EPIX.’ Adopting a designation with knowledge of its
trademark status permits a presumption of intent to deceive. See Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1059
(citing Official Airline Guides, Inc. v.
Goss, [1993] USCA9 3170; 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993)). In turn, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of
confusion. Sleekcraft, 550 F.2d
at 354.
Thus, it is found and concluded that the
domain name was registered in bad faith.
DECISION
Based on the above findings and
conclusions, it is decided that the domain name <sex.biz>
registered by Respondent, Personal, shall be and the same is TRANSFERRED
to Complainant, Marcus R. Schatte d/b/a Sex.
Subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this domain name SHALL
NOT be permitted.
JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS
(Retired), Panelist
Dated: November 4, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1510.html