Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Diane Hof a/k/a Sunset Thomas v. Lorna
Kang
Claim
Number: FA0303000151119
Complainant is
Diane Hof a/k/a Sunset Thomas, Carson City, NV, USA (“Complainant”)
represented by Allan B. Gelbard. Respondent is Lorna Kang,
Perak, Malaysia (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <sunsetthomas.com> registered with Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 21, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 24, 2003.
On
March 21, 2003, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <sunsetthomas.com> is registered
with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com
verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com registration agreement
and 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 27, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 16, 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@sunsetthomas.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 26, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson 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. The domain name registered by Respondent,
<sunsetthomas.com>, is identical to Complainant’s SUNSET THOMAS
mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sunsetthomas.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is
an internationally famous actress, model and entertainer who has been known by
and performed exclusively under the
name “Sunset Thomas” since 1992.
Complainant’s fame derives from her 10 years of adult entertainment experience,
including a role
in the HBO special “Cat House” and numerous starring roles in
productions by VCA Pictures.
Respondent
registered the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name November 13, 2001.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer adult entertainment
services that compete with
Complainant by implying her affiliation, endorsement
or connection with the services provided by Respondent.
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
will draw such inferences as the Panel 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.
The ICANN
dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a
trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant
has rights’ means that
ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law
trademark or service mark rights
will suffice” to support a domain name
Complaint under the Policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000). Complainant has been known by and
has performed exclusively under the name “Sunset Thomas” since 1992.
Thus,
Complainant has a bona fide basis for making this claim pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i) because she has worked under that name
for as many as 10 years. See
Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that
ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive
rights,’
but only that Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the
Complaint in the first place); see also Sade v. Quantum Computer Serv., Inc., D2000-0794 (WIPO Sept. 26,
2000) (“Although the Complainant has not registered the word ‘SADE’ either as a
trademark or as a service
mark in any jurisdiction, the Complainant has adapted
the word ‘SADE’ as her stage-name and as a trademark and service mark and this
Administrative Panel . . . is further satisfied that the Complainant has
established that she has common law rights in the said mark”).
The domain name
registered by Respondent, <sunsetthomas.com>, is identical to
Complainant’s SUNSET THOMAS mark because the disputed domain name incorporates
Complainant’s entire mark and simply
adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com” to the end of the mark. The addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently
distinguish
Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes
of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)’s “confusingly similar” analysis. See Fed’n
of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson & Scanlon, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark
GAY
GAMES); see also Victoria's
Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that the
<bodybyvictoria.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BODY
BY
VICTORIA mark).
Thus, the Panel
finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent
neglected to provide a Response to the allegations of the Complaint. Thus, the
Panel may accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as
true. See 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
Complainant to be deemed true); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v.
Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the
absence of a Response the Panel is free to make inferences from
the very
failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it
might otherwise do).
Furthermore,
Respondent rejected its opportunity to establish circumstances that could
demonstrate its rights to or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks any rights to or
legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
(WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name because the Respondent
never submitted a response
nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent fails to respond).
Respondent is
using the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name to divert Internet
traffic to its competing website, which offers adult entertainment services.
Respondent’s commercial
use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet
traffic is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro
Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use
where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users
to its competing
website); see also Big Dog
Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no
legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks).
Respondent has
not come forward with any proof and no evidence in the record establishes that
Respondent is commonly known by either
SUNSET THOMAS or sunsetthomas.com>.
Thus, Respondent failed to establish that it has rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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"); see
also 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent is
using the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name to offer adult
entertainment services in competition with Complainant. Registration and use of
a domain name primarily
for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii).
See General Media
Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001)
(finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a
domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a
pornographic web site); see also
S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by
attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with Complainant’s
business).
The Panel may
infer that Respondent is deriving commercial gain from its operation of an
adult entertainment website. By creating
likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet
users to Respondent’s
website for its commercial gain, which is evidence of bad
faith registration and use 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 State
Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name
<bigtex.net> to infringe
on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet
users to Respondent’s website).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: May 12, 2003.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/482.html