Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/dow-jones-company-inc-and-dow-jones-lp-v-john-zuccarini/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:27:53+00:00

Document:
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - Trademark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Misspelling - Registered thousands of names - Profiting on the publics confusion - Diverting traffic to his sites - Profit from Advertising and Links - Bad Faith Registration and Use.
Complainant owns 56 worldwide registered The Wall Street Journal trademarks (the Trademark). Respondent registered wallstreetjounal.com and wallstreetjournel (the Domain names) which he uses to link to the Complainants site while simultaneously forcing display of unrelated advertising sites. Respondent has also registered thousands of domain names which are misspellings or variations of celebrities names or product and other Website names.
Respondent declined to rebut allegation of similarity with the Trademark and admitted in other proceedings that he registered misspellings precisely because of confusing misspelled domain names were for all practical purposes identical to trademarks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain names because, as shown in previous cases, Respondent has thousands of domain names and Websites which are merely vehicles for him to make money by profiting on the publics confusion and deceiving Internet users through typographical errors or misspellings of marks. Respondent registered and has used the Domain names solely for the purpose of trading on the global reputation of the Trademark and attracting users to his sites, and thus to profit from advertising and links to other Websites by diverting Internet traffic to his. Respondent has thus acted in bad faith in registering and in using the Domain names.
Shields v. Zuccarini, 89 F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D. Pa. March 22 and 27, 2000).
Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, NAF 0003000094380 and FA 0003000094381.
Spiegel Catalog, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Case No. AF-0237a-d (July 28, 2000).
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Cupcake City, NAF FA 0002000093562 (March 31, 2000).
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, NAF FA 00040000994454 (May 30, 2000).
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, WIPO D2000-0330 (June 7, 2000).
On June 21, 22 and 23, 2000, Zuccarini and the Centers case manager exchanged a series of email messages. The net of these messages is that (1) Zuccarini sought information as to the specific criteria the Center had used to determine that the complaint is in compliance with the Policy and the Rules, (2) the Center directed Zuccarini to the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and case decisions, and (3) Zuccarini expressed frustration with the Centers responses.
On July 10, 2000, the Center received via email Zuccarinis response to the complaint. The response in hard copy was received July 12, 2000.
On August 4, 2000, the Center advised the parties via email that David W. Plant (USA) had been appointed as the panelist in this proceeding, and the Administrative Panels decision is due August 28, 2000.
At paragraphs 12.a. - l., Complainants set out facts, which are not contested by Zuccarini, as to Complainants ownership, promotion and use of the mark, as well as related marks and Complainants "wsj.com" website ("the largest paying subscriber site on the Internet", receiving about 30,000 non-subscriber hits per day).
"to create unauthorized links to the on-line edition of The Wall Street Journal and to simultaneously create three links to Respondents sites, appearing as buttons on the users task bar. ... The Internet user is thus unable to delete the buttons without opening the [three] window advertisements. In this way, Respondent forces the user to access each of his three sites."
"On June 6, 2000, the Domain Names linked to the on-line edition of The Wall Street Journal and simultaneously to task-bar buttons that opened window advertisements for three of Respondents web sites ... ."
"On January 10, 2000, the Internet user who entered the Domain Names linked to the on-line edition of The Wall Street Journal, which combined with three of Respondents web sites ... ."
"The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to [THE WALL STREET JOURNAL] ... . See Shields v. Zuccarini, ... finding confusing similarity under the United States AntiCyberSquatting Consumer Protection Act ..., because, in addition to Respondents admission that he registered misspellings precisely because of confusing similarity with others names, misspelled domain names were for all practical purposes identical to plaintiffs mark ... . See also Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini ... . Respondents misspelled domain names ... were confusingly similar to ... registered mark ... ."
At paragraph 12.r. (first occurrence), Complainants aver (1) Zuccarini has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names, (2) Complainants have exclusive rights to the mark and have not given Zuccarini permission to use the Wall Street Journal name, (3) no relationship entitles Zuccarini to use the mark, and (4) the domain names do not resemble Zuccarinis personal name.
"The Respondent is intentionally using Complainants famous and well-respected Wall Street Journal name to lure Internet users to his Web site for financial gain."
"thousands of [ ] [sic] domain names, because they are confusingly similar to others famous marks or personal names -- and thus are likely misspellings of these names -- in an effort to divert Internet traffic to his sites."
(ii) In light of the fame throughout the world enjoyed by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL mark, Zuccarini cannot argue he was unaware of Complainants trademark rights when he registered and used the domain names. Zuccarini "deliberately registered and is using the Domain Names ... to lure Internet users to his Web sites. He then forces them to access and view the advertisements on those sites." In Shields, the court found Zuccarini received from the advertisers "between ten and twenty-five cents per click."
(iii) Zuccarini conducts no legitimate business and offers no goods or services that are in any way connected to The Wall Street Journal. If he did, such unauthorized activity "would itself be a violation of Complainants intellectual property rights."
At paragraph 12.r (second occurrence), Complainants aver inter alia Zuccarini is using the domain names in issue for commercial purposes. One site "invites the Internet user to click on any banner for 30-second credit approval. Clicking on a banner takes the user to a www.nextcard.com site ... which offers an easy on-line application for a NextCard Visa credit card. ... A second Web site ... features a link to www.netradio.com .... which offers CDs (compact disks) for sale."
At the outset, Zuccarini strongly objects (pages 2 - 4) to the response he received from the case manager in regard to his "request for specific information, of where exactly I could find the criteria that must be present in a complaint before it is considered valid." Copies of June 21, 22 and 23, 2000 emails appear at "annex a" to the Response. Zuccarini urges (page 4) the Panel to deny the complaint and the transfer of the domain names in issue solely on the ground that the case managers responses to Zuccarinis requests were deliberately vague and done to prevent a "fair and proper hearing".
Zuccarini states he has "no response" (page 5) to any averments in the complaint through paragraph 12.l. Thus, inter alia, Zuccarini does not contest (1) Complainants exclusive rights to the THE WALL STREET JOURNAL mark, (2) Complainants registration, promotion and use of the mark and variations of the mark worldwide, or (3) the worldwide fame and goodwill associated with the mark.
Also, Zuccarini has "no response" (pages 5 - 6) to paragraph 12.q. Accordingly, Zuccarini does not challenge Complainants averments that (1) the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, or (2) Zuccarini registered the domain names in issue precisely because of such confusing similarity.
Apparently, Zuccarinis concerns were not significant. Although Zuccarini complains about the Centers responses to his email inquiries, he points to no failure of the complaint to comply with formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules or the Supplemental Rules. We address the implications of Zuccarinis response in the discussion below.
On this record, Zuccarini has expressly declined to challenge (1) the validity of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL mark and Complainants various registrations, (2) Complainants exclusive rights to the mark, (3) the global fame and goodwill associated with the mark, or (4) any fact averred by Complainants as to promotion of the mark, use of the mark, and sales of services and goods under the mark.
Zuccarini does not attempt to undercut Complainants averments with evidence Zuccarini must possess as to his development and use of the domain names in issue. Rather, Zuccarini asserts that Complainants have provided no evidence to support their description of Zuccarinis websites associated with the two domain names. Zuccarini offers only the unsupported and conclusory assertions (page 6) that (1) he has the right to own the domain names, (2) he has as much right to own the domain names as he does to say "Wall Street Journal" in conversation, and (3) another entity unrelated to Dow Jones owns "wallstreetjournal.com". On this record, it is fair to conclude that Zuccarini has no evidence to undercut Complainants averments concerning Zuccarinis actual development and use of the two domain names in issue.
"featured advertisements for other sites and credit card companies. Visitors were trapped or mousetrapped in the sites, unable to exit without clicking on a succession of ads. Zuccarini received between ten and twenty-five cents from the advertisers for every click.
"... Zuccarini testified before us that he was amazed to learn people mistype [sought domain names] as often as they do, and thus variants on actual spelling of likely search names would result in many unintended visitors to Zuccarinis sites. Actual experience seems rather clearly to have borne out Zuccarinis analysis, as his click-based revenue now approaches $1 million per year.
"... the vast majority of Zuccarinis many websites [viz. 3,000] ... are merely vehicles for him to make money."
"... Zuccarini admits that he is literally in the business of profiting on the publics confusion. He makes money with each Internet user he deceives, and his revenue stream suggests that he deceives many people.
Also, more recently, in Spiegel Catalog, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Case No. AF-0237a-d (July 28, 2000), the panel found that Zuccarinis registered domain names in issue there, as here, -- typographical errors or confused misspellings of the mark in issue -- were "designed to lead a consumer who misspells or misenters complainants name to a web site from which respondent will profit." The Spiegel panel ruled that Zuccarini had demonstrated no legitimate right or interest in the domain names in issue and had registered and used them in bad faith.
Neither Zuccarinis attempt to explain away his testimony in the Shields case (pages 6 - 7), nor his hearsay account of some one elses purported experience (page 5) undercuts in any way the evidence before this Panel and the inferences that evidence supports.
It is plain that Zuccarini registered and has used the two domain names solely for the purpose of trading on the global reputation of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, taking advantage of the tendency of Internet users to misspell, and attracting such users to his own sites, and thus to profit from his own sales of advertising and from links to other websites. Zuccarinis admissions in the Shields case, and the Courts findings in that case (e.g. "there is overwhelming evidence that Zuccarini acted with a bad-faith intent of profit") buttress this conclusion.
Zuccarinis attempt (pages 6 - 7) to explain away his testimony in Shields rings hollow. At best it is wishful thinking, unsupported by any evidence in this record. It is crystal clear that he registered thousands of domain names because they are confusingly similar to others famous marks or personal names -- and thus are likely misspellings of those names -- in an effort to divert Internet traffic to his sites.
(iv) by using the domain name, Zuccarini has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site or location or of a product or service on his web site or location.
Similarly, Zuccarini has failed to demonstrate that any of the three factors in Paragraph 4.c. of the Policy shows any right or legitimate interest of Zuccarini in the domain names in issue. Indeed, on the record here, each such factor points plainly to a lack of any right or legitimate interest on Zuccarinis part in either domain name.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.