Domain Name Shame

And The Disputed Domain Name Winner Is . . .

In this WIPO dispute, Complainant sought transfer of the disputed domain names "goldenglobe.com" and "goldenglobes.com".  Complainant's Golden Globe Award Ceremony is world famous and Complainant is the registered owner of three US trademark registrations for "GOLDEN GLOBE" covering, among other things, services associated with its award ceremony.

The disputed domain names were not in use and were not connected to any website.  Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter, but got no reply to that or its WIPO Complaint.  The Panel ordered that the disputed domain names be transferred to Complainant, holding that Respondent did not appear to have any legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain names and that they had been registered and used in bad faith.  In so holding, the Panel accepted Complainant's argument that Respondent had registered the domains with the intention of selling them at a profit.  In that regard, the Registrar's Whois database identified the Administrative Contact of the domains as "Sale, For" (i.e. For Sale).  The Panel believed that, under the circumstances, Complainant's argument was a reasonable assumption, particularly since Respondent had not challenged the allegation.  Given that Respondent had no active use planned for the domains and they had remained unused for over 10 years, the Panel accepted that their sale was Respondent's objective at the date of registration. Registration of a domain name with knowledge that it reproduces the Complainant's trademark and with a view to profiting from its sale is bad faith registration and use, warranting transfer of the disputed domain names. Hollywood Foreign Press Association v. F.M.I., WIPO Case No. D2008-1610

My Name, Your Domain Name

Complainant, Peter Bober, is an attorney and mayor of the city of Hollywood, Florida. He is the youngest mayor ever elected to this position and the first of Cuban ancestry.  Mr. Bober and his wife have a law practice, Bober & Bober, P.A., located in Hollywood, Florida, where they specialize in employment law.  He has published legal articles in various law journals and is active in the Hollywood, Florida community. 

Despite this, the Panel denied Mr. Bober's Complaint which sought transfer of the disputed domain name, "peterbober.com".  The disputed domain was not being actively used by Respondent. However, in denying the Complaint, the Panel determined that Mr. Bober had failed to show that his name, Peter Bober, had achieved common law trademark rights as it was not identified with a particular business.  As a general matter, personal names are not protected under the Policy, including the personal names of business men and politicians, unless the business person has established that his name is synonymous with a particular business and that good will exists not only in the name of the business but in the name of the individual with which it is identified, or where a politician has derived commercial success from the use of his name, such as through the authorship of commercially successful books.  In this case, Mr. Bober's law practice was called "Bober & Bober P.A.".  The Panel commented that if he had perhaps been offering legal services under the name "Law Offices of Peter Bober", the result of this case may have been different.  Although Mr. Bober has been published, his authored articles were of a scholarly nature, not commercially successful books. Under all of these circumstances, common law trademark rights in a personal name were not established by Complainant. Peter Bober v. National Institute for Mortgage Education, WIPO Case No. D2008-1668

Ticket To A Domain Name Dispute

Complainant, Ticketmaster, is a global leader in live entertainment ticketing and marketing event ticket sales, operating in 20 global markets and providing ticket sales, resale services, marketing and distribution through "www.ticketmaster.com" -- one of the largest e-commerce sites on the Internet.  Complainant holds federal and foreign trademark registrations for the mark "TICKETMASTER".

The disputed domain name, "tiicketmaster.com", was successfully transferred to the Complainant based upon the Panel's finding that: (i) the disputed domain was confusingly similar to the TICKETMASTER marks given its spelling, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain, particularly when taking the fame of the TICKETMASTER marks into consideration which lead the Panel to find that Respondent's choice of the disputed domain name could not have resulted from mere coincidence, and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, based upon the Panel's review of a screen capture of the website "www.tiicketmaster.com" provided by Complainant, which showed that the disputed domain provided advertising sites that offered links to various businesses, including competing ticketing sites.  At the time of the Panel's decision, the disputed domain resolved to an error page.  Under the circumstances, this type of "passive holding" was further indicative of bad faith use according to prevailing opinions in numerous UDRP panels.  Ticketmaster v. Wang Xiao Ping, WIPO Case No. D20088-150