Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Christopher Trotman Nixon v. Lucian Kaine
a/k/a Nunya Binness
Claim
Number: FA0303000149415
Complainant is
Christopher Trotman Nixon Hunt Valley, MD (“Complainant”) represented
by Sheryl N. Stephenson, of Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler PA.
Respondent is Lucian Kaine a/k/a Nunya Binness, I Don’t Think So!,
MA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <trotnixon.com>, registered with Enom,
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 14, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 18, 2003.
On
March 14, 2003, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <trotnixon.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that
Respondent
is bound by the Enom, 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
March 28, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 17, 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@trotnixon.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
April 29, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as
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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <trotnixon.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TROT NIXON common law
trademark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <trotnixon.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <trotnixon.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Christopher Trotman Nixon (publicly known as “Trot Nixon”), is a famous Major
League Baseball Player who currently plays
for the Boston Red Sox.
Complainant’s submission includes articles that summarize and reference
Complainant’s baseball statistics
and career.
Respondent, Lucian
Kaine a/k/a Nunya Binness, registered the <trotnixon.com> domain
name on January 31, 2003. Prior to Respondent’s registration of the subject
domain name, <trotnixon.com> served as the URL for a website
maintained by a fan of Complainant that contained information and statistics
relating to Complainant’s
baseball career. However, after Respondent became the
registrant of the domain name, <trotnixon.com> currently resolves
to a website that displays sexually explicit information and photographs. The
contents of Respondent’s website
do not contain any information relating to
Major League Baseball or Complainant.
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 has
established rights in the TROT NIXON mark because it is well established that
celebrities have sufficient rights in
their names to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)’s
initial threshold requirement. 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 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); McCarthy
on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 13:1 (4th ed.
2002).
Respondent’s <trotnixon.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s TROT NIXON likeness. Respondent’s
domain name incorporates Complainant’s name in its entirety
and only deviates
by the addition of the top-level domain “.com.” Because top-level domains are
inconsequential when conducting an
identical analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i),
Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law mark. 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 Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the
top-level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the
domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or
confusingly similar).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, Complainant’s
submission has gone unopposed and the arguments
unrefuted. In the absence of a
Response, the Panel is permitted to accept as true all reasonable allegations
contained in the Complaint
unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.
Further, because Respondent has failed to submit a Response, Respondent has
failed to
propose any set of circumstances that could substantiate its rights
or legitimate interests in the <trotnixon.com> domain name. See
Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance that
could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all
reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of the Complaint to be deemed
true).
Respondent’s <trotnixon.com>
domain name resolves to a pornographic website. Although a website
containing pornographic content is not per se illegitimate, the
circumstances surrounding Respondent’s registration and use of this domain name
reinforce such a finding. Specifically,
Respondent capitalizes on the
unauthorized use of Complainant’s famous name to ensnare unsuspecting Internet
users into visiting
its explicit website. Respondent’s use of the disputed
domain name to confuse and divert Internet users at the expense of
Complainant’s
reputation fails to establish rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com,
D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to
profit using Complainant’s
mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA
96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's
well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic
site is not a legitimate or
fair use).
Respondent is
not authorized or licensed to make use of Complainant’s TROT NIXON common law
mark in connection with its website or
pornographic offerings. Moreover, the
contents of the website contain no information relating to Major League
Baseball or Complainant.
Respondent’s WHOIS information indicates that it is
known as “Lucian Kaine” and “Nunya Binness,” and not the second-level “Trot
Nixon”
domain. Therefore, no information suggests that Respondent is commonly
known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc.
v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also
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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The <trotnixon.com>
domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Specifically,
Respondent seeks to capitalize on Complainant’s celebrity status
by using the
infringing domain name to attract Internet users to its pornographic website,
absent any authorization or consent from
Complainant. The content displayed on
Respondent’s website allows the inference that Respondent benefits commercially
from its maintenance
of the website, and no evidence has been presented to the
Panel that suggests a finding to the contrary. Respondent’s exploitation
of
Complainant’s mark for commercial gain is conduct explicitly proscribed by the
Policy. Therefore, Respondent registered and used
the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Kahn, 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 Brown &
Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (use of
another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is evidence
of
bad faith registration and use).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <trotnixon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
May 2, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/447.html