Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Ann Coulter v. Mark Vadnais
Claim Number: FA0212000137221
PARTIES
Complainant is Ann Coulter, New York,
NY (“Complainant”) represented by Thomas M. Barba, of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Respondent
is Mark Vadnais, Oakdale, MN
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <anncoulter.com>, registered with
Network Solutions, 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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as
Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December
19, 2002; the
Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 23, 2002.
On December 30, 2002, Network Solutions,
Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <anncoulter.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions,
Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 December 30, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement
Notification"),
setting a deadline of January 20, 2003 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@anncoulter.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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification
of Respondent Default.
On January 28, 2003, pursuant to
Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
Forum appointed Honorable
Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications
records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response
from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s
<anncoulter.com> domain name
is identical to Complainant’s common law ANN COULTER mark.
2. Respondent
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <anncoulter.com> domain name.
3. Respondent
registered and used the <anncoulter.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Ann Coulter, is a
professional political commentator and television personality. She is a regular
on the MSNBC broadcast
network and has appeared as a guest on political
television programs such as ABC’s Good
Morning America; NBC’s Today Show;
CNN’s Larry King Live, Crossfire, and American Morning;
and Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor. A
highly-sought public speaker, Complainant receives hundreds of requests for
speaking engagements and public appearances each year.
Complainant has a widely distributed
syndicated column which appears in more than fifty newspapers in the United
States. Complainant
has also written several books, including High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case
Against Bill Clinton and Slander:
Liberal Lies About the American Right, which spent eight and ten weeks on
the New York Times Best-seller list, respectively. She has been a contributor
to National Review, George, and Human Events, and her opinion-editorials have been published by
hundreds of newspapers in the United States.
Complainant has been profiled in
publications such as the Washington Post,
National Journal, TV Guide and New York magazine. Judge Richard Posner lists Complainant as one of
the “100 Top Public Intellectuals” and George
magazine lists Complainant as one of the twenty “Most Interesting Women in
Politics.”
Respondent, Mark Vadnais, registered the <anncoulter.com> domain name on
January 27, 2000. Respondent previously used the domain name to post Complainant’s
likeness and syndicated columns
without Complainant’s authorization or license.
Currently, Respondent posts no content at the disputed domain name.
After being notified of Complainant’s
rights in the ANN COULTER mark in a series of communications in 2000-2001,
Respondent agreed
to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, as long
as it could be assured that it was indeed the real Ann Coulter. After
prolonged
discussion, Respondent failed to sign or submit transfer documents given to him
by Complainant, and ceased acknowledging
any communications from Complainant.
DISCUSSION
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established
common law rights in the ANN COULTER name and mark, permitting it to bring this
dispute under the UDRP.
See 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
the Complainant have rights in a registered trademark
and that it is sufficient
to show common law rights); (finding that the Complainant has common law rights
to her name).
Respondent’s <anncoulter.com> domain name is
identical to Complainant’s ANN COULTER mark. Respondent’s elimination of the
spaces between the words in Complainant’s
name and mark and the addition of the
top-level domain “.com,” both required features of a domain name, do not create
distinctions
that are relevant for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Hannover
Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7,
2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as
spaces are impermissible
in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as
‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Yanni Mgmt., Inc. v. Progressive Indus., FA 95063 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (concluding that a confusing similarity existed
between <yanni.com> and Complainant’s
YANNI trademark, but for the .com
portion of the domain name).
Accordingly, the Panel finds
that the <anncoulter.com> domain
name is identical to Complainant’s common law ANN COULTER mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate
Interests
Complainant can make an
affirmative showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name by demonstrating
that Respondent does not qualify for
the protections offered under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii). With such a showing,
Complainant has
successfully met its burden under the Policy, shifting the
burden to Respondent to rebut Complainant’s allegations. See G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where a
Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with respect to the domain name, Respondent must 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).
In the past, Respondent has
used the <anncoulter.com> to
post Complainant’s likeness and syndicated columns without authorization or
license from Complainant. Such activity, violating
United States and
international copyright and trademark laws, was neither a bona fide offering of
goods and services as contemplated
in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor an example of a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Marino v. Video Images
Prod., D2000-0598 (WIPO Aug. 2,
2000) (stating, "[I]n fact, in light of the uniqueness of the name
<danmarino.com>, which is virtually
identical to the Complainant’s
personal name and common law trade mark, it would be extremely difficult to
foresee any justifiable
use that the Respondent could claim. On the contrary, selecting this name gives
rise to the impression of an association with the Complainant which is not
based in fact");
see also State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000)
(finding that “unauthorized providing of information and services under a mark
owned by
a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or
services”).
After Respondent removed the
infringing material from its domain name, it ceased to post any content at all.
Non-use of a domain name
does not evidence rights or legitimate interests under
Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See
Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent failed to submit a
Response to the Complaint
and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret
AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that “merely
registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate
interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”).
Respondent is listed in the WHOIS
contact information for the <anncoulter.com>
domain name as Mark Vadnais, not
“Ann Coulter.” Moreover, Respondent’s posting of Complainant’s columns on its
website, along with its statement
in an e-mail expressing a willingness to
“gladly” transfer the disputed domain name when presented with “concrete
evidence” that
it was dealing with Ann Coulter both imply that Respondent is
not commonly known by the name ANN COULTER. As such, Complainant has
shown that
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name
when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see
also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing
that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of
the domain name to prevail").
Complainant has adequately
met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). By not responding to the Complaint,
Respondent fails to meet its
burden. The Panel views this failure as evidence
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name.
See 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); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate,
pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds
that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <anncoulter.com> domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad
Faith
When determining whether a
domain name has been used in bad faith, the Panel will not only look to Policy
¶ 4(b) for guidance, but
to all of the circumstances surrounding the dispute in
reaching its decision. See Cellular One
Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria
specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith
evidence); see also Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that
in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel
must look at the “totality of circumstances”).
Respondent initially used the
<anncoulter.com> domain name
to post Complainant’s syndicated materials without authorization by
Complainant. In doing so, Respondent was violating
both United States and
international copyright and trademark laws, activity that equates to bad faith
use of the domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Monsanto
Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding
that Respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as
Complainant
and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding
of bad faith); see also DaimlerChrysler
Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s use of the title “Dodgeviper.com
Official Home Page” gave consumers the impression that Complainant endorsed
and
sponsored Respondent’s website).
The Panel infers from the
facts that Respondent was well-aware of Complainant and its rights in the ANN
COULTER mark prior to registering
its infringing domain name. Respondent’s
registration of the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s
rights evidences
bad faith registration of the domain name. See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
[2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a
mark he knows to be similar to another, one can
infer an intent to
confuse"); see also Albrecht v.
Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (“The Respondent
intentionally registered a domain name which uses the Complainant’s name. There is no reasonable possibility that the
name karlalbrecht.com was selected at random.
There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in
good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude
that the
registration was done in bad faith”).
In light of Respondent’s bad
faith registration and previous use of the disputed domain name, the Panel
feels that Respondent would
be hard-pressed to make any good faith use of the
domain name. As Respondent did not come forward in this proceeding with any
evidence
rebutting this inference, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s
passive holding of the <anncoulter.com>
domain name is further evidence
of bad faith on behalf of Respondent. See
Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000)
(finding that “it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the
Respondent to amount
to the domain name being used in bad faith”); see also Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane
S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith
where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are
no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the
domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose).
The Panel thus finds that
Respondent registered and used the <anncoulter.com>
domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three
elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered
that the <anncoulter.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.)
Panelist
Dated: February 11, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/1135.html