Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 01:41:37
Document Index: 572165279

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1072', '§ 114', '§ 114', '§ 114', '§ 114', '§ 1072', '§ 114']

Domain Name Disputes: Cases Illustrate Limitations of ICANN Policy | Mitchell J. Matorin - JDSupra
Domain Name Disputes: Cases Illustrate Limitations of ICANN Policy
Article discusses Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution (UDRP) system for resolving disputes over Internet domains that infringe trademarks, and discusses UDRP decisions interpreting and applying various aspects of the rules.
Domain Name Disputes: Cases Illustrate Limitations of ICANN Policy Mitchell ]. Matorin and Michael Boudett The first of these three elements has been easily met in most proceedings under the UDRP; the second have and in more detail belo*: However, recent decisions have also limitations a procedural ineffectiveness for cyber squatters. well known practitioners law. person renewing toplevel domains ..or .accredited II. objectives speed and inexpensiveness on which it is based, the not allow by either party. The rules the Rules") contemplate submission its allegations, incorporating a certified statement are""any documentary ... party] relies."7 Notwithstanding lack of discovery, the burden regarding on the complainant, "the complainant prove that each of these three elements [i.e., similarity, lack of legitimate rights, are present."As respect of legitimate rights element, the UDRP requires complainants "to prove a -a difficult, if not impossible task."9 Also, the Rules provide that there shall be no submissions other than the complaint and response unless specifically mayor may not have to submit a reply respondent's story. 10 and the imposition of proof on all elements can for complainants. the published panel decisions policy, an e-mail exchange or has prior contact between the parties; is contact Thus, at the a has UDRP, can annex concerning its own rights 16 of the UDRP that the domain name will if panel orders on merits.2 ICANN approved four private arbitration providers: the World Forum, Institute 1700 have been decided. Of approximately complainant.3 panel's non-binding in the sense that it does not contemporaneous) proceeding, decision is not dear.4 the arbitration panel ordering the name The domain name is identical mark in rights; The respondent of name; and, (iii) The domain name has been and is being used in bad faith. s factors third elements. For example, it specifies name connection a fide offering of goods prior to notice that offering in of out-of-pocket shall constitute evidence of bad faith.6 anniversary' from the of asserting trademark policy has largely been a successful mechanism for gardenvariety cyber and a partner in the at Foley, & LLP. experience in a lntellectual & LLP, with 24, 1999, the Internet, the Corporation for Assigned Names and promulgated resolving disputes of that trademark others. set mechanism for name disputes through arbitration. I As of its , ....l~:--:.~ 2001 Boston Bar Journal The first of these three elements has Domain Name Disputes: Cases Illustrate been easily met in most Limitations of ICANN Policy proceedings brought under the UDRP; the second and third have been more troublesome and by Mitchell J. Matorin and Michael Boudett are discussed in more detail below Evidence, Presumptions, On October 24, 1999, the entity that application of the UDRP as part of the and Burden of Proof manages the Internet, the Internet registration agreement. The registrant Consistent with the objectives of Corporation for Assigned Names and also agrees that the domain name will be speed and inexpensiveness on which it Numbers or "ICANN", promulgated a cancelled or transferred if another ibsased, the UDRP does not allow for new policy for resolving disputes person (a "complainant") brings a discovery by either parr. The rules concerning registration of domain proceeding under the UDRP and the promulgated by ICANN to implement names that arguably infringe on trade-arbitration panel orders such relief after the UDRP ("the Rules") contemplate mark rights of considering the case on the merits? that each side shall make one submisothers. The To date, ICANN has approved four sion setting forth its allegations, incorpo-Uniform Domain private arbitration providers: the World rating therein a certifed statement that Name Dispute Intellectual Property Organization, the the assertions therein are "complete and Policy ("UDRP") National Arbitration Forum, accurate" to the best of the signing party's was intended to eResolution, and CPR Institute for knowledge, and annexing "any docuset up a speedy and Dispute Resolution. Approximately 1700 mentary or other evidence ... upon Mitchell J. Matorin is inexpensive proceedings have been decided. Of which the [parry] relies."' Notwitha senior associate in mechanism for these, approximately 1350, or 79%, have standing the lack of discovery, the UDRP the Intellectual Property Litigation resolving domain been in favor of the complainant.' places the burden of proof regarding practice group at name disputes The arbitration panel's decision is each element on the complainant, Foley, Hoag through arbitra-non-binding in the sense that it does not providing that "the complainant must & Eliot, LLP with experience in tion.' As of its preclude a subsequent (or even contem-prove that each of these three internet and domain one-year anniver-poraneous) court proceeding although e[il.eem., esnimtsilarity lack of legitimate rights, name disputes. sary from the the weight to be given in court to an and bad faith] are present."8 As one perspective of arbitration decision is not clear .4 panel noted with respect to the lack of complainants In order to obtain a decision from legitimate rights element, the UDRP asserting tradethe arbitration panel ordering the requires complainants "to prove a mark rights, the domain name transfer, the complainant negative -a difcult, if not impossible policy has largely must satisfy three elements: task."' been a successful (i) The domain name is identical Also, the Rules provide that mechanism for or confusingly similar to a trademark or shallt hbeer eno submissions other than the Michael Boudett is a partner in the pursuing garden-service mark in which the complainant complaint and response unless Intellectual Property variety "cyber has specifrights; cally requested by the panel. Thus, the Litigation practice squatters" such as (ii) The respondent has no rights or complainant may or may not have the group at Foley, Hoag & Eliot, LLP. warehousers and legitimate interests in respect of the opportunity to submit a reply rebutting extortionists. domain name; and, the respondent's story. However, recent decisions have 10 also (iii) The domain name has been In practice, the combination of a shown the substantial limitations of the registered and is being used in bad faith.' lack of discovery and the imposition of UDRP as a procedural mechanism and The UDRP contains a non-exclusive the burden of proof on all elements can its inefectiveness for pursuing more list of factors relevant to the second and be quite problematic for complainants. sophisticated cyber squatters. elements. For example, specifes In most of the published panel decisions that using the domain name in connec-under the policy, an e-mail exchange or I. Background The basic elements of the UDRP are tion with a bona fde ofering of goods or telephone conversation has been the already well known to most practitio-services prior to any notice of the dispute only prior contact between the parties; ners in trademark and Internet law. shall demonstrate legitimate interests in sometimes there is no prior contact at the domain name. On the other hand, it all. Thus, at the time a complainant has Every person registering, renewing or provides that ofering a domain name for invoked the UDRP, it can readily annex maintaining a domain name in the toplevel domains.com, net, or.org with sale in substantial excess of out-ofpocket information concering its own rights ICANN-accredited registrars consents to costs shall constitute evidence of bad faith.' Continued on page 16 4 March/April 2001 Boston Bar Journal Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2President's Page from page 2 indeed independent qualified. The JBC, an institution, has as an autonomous candidates in Massachusetts 1961. Since the Dukakis Administration, when the creation of the credibility to the earliest phase of the IBC has performed JBC the judicial selection in a fashion which enhanced the confidence of the Bench, the and the public in chosen to preside over our courtrooms. Democratic Republican alike, the JBC has mechanism performed ' before name was made public, and the last opportunity for to "speak now their] peace" before a placed in public of that process shortcircuited fiat of the Governor, obligation to heed the concerns of the public, Bar, or even when nominations. Yes, he is within his rights without to of candidates. he is within rights to withhold from that independent information concerning But, the mere fact that he possesses such rights does not indicate that he is justified, or certainly he them. When and the public, he simply responded that the outcry was "silly," and characterized the IBC a virtual because only unqualified. (After all, difference if there is a bad apple here and 16 MarchiApril 2001 there, if the rest of those in the barrel are awareness in the critical importance of an independent and qualified judiciary filter through the State executive great JBC, to the Instead, vowed to preserve the integrity of the review process, with or without the They will continue to perform a due diligence on candidate, but they will do so after the nominee's name is made public. Therefore, of their results will public (after private notification and to be heard in any case is preliminarily not qualified). as as possible, to ensure that their inquiry is properly focussed; but now the information (Le., application) will be from An qualified any to lightly. has committed will be called upon to do theirs by voluntarily to withhold. Eventually, perhaps this Governor, or his successor, will see his or her way to branch to Comments can be sent Joan luJley@haledo1T.com. I Domain Name Disputes from 4 -for instance, its trademark registrations of use of the mark but it is often poorly positioned to state specific the respondent's lack of legitimate rights faith. Often, first time opportunity learn the respondent's rationale for its question opposition (assuming that the respondent doesn't default, a not-uncommon even if absence of discovery it may be impossible to provide specific evidence contradicting respondent's rationale. the UDRP seems place squarely complainant respect to each the three elements, the UDRP somewhat contradictorily suggests that the burden the respondent's submission specific types evidence"rights to the domain. ll In the face of this panels have different views as of evidence necessary and the ease with can overcome well in Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web (~PO. 02000-0624, Aug. 21, 2000), whIch Involved names pollyestlzer.co111 pollyestJzer. 1let. (without evidentiary support other than her certification) that she rights in the domain name because "Pollv Esther" was "a pet name" for the respon-' dent, IIbestowed father, [respondent's] polyester bell-bottom pants." The panel between rule imposing burden of to establish own legitimate rights: Boston Bar Journal President's Page there, if the rest of those in the barrel are Domain Name Disputes Continued from page 2 sound.) Apparently, the heightened Continued from page public awareness in the critical impor-4 tance of an independent and judges are indeed independent and qualified -for instance, its trademark registrajudiciary did not flter through the qualifed. The JBC, as an institution, has tions and examples of use of the mark -construction tarps enshrouding the State existed as an autonomous reviewer of but it is ofen poorly positioned to House to the executive suite. state judicial candidates in Massachusetts (let alone prove) anything specifc about To their great credit, the JBC, under since at least 1961. Since the Dukakis the respondent's lack of legitimate rights the leadership of Ned Notis-McConarty, Administration, when the creation of the or its bad faith. Ofen, the frst time that has refused to accept the Governor's new Judicial Nominating Council added the complainant has the opportunity to rules. instead, committee members have credibility to the earliest phase of the learn the respondent's rationale for vowed to preserve the integrity of the its selection process, the JBC has performed registration of the domain in question is review process, with or without the a balancing bookends, the JNC and the via the registrant's opposition to the Governor's cooperation. They will IBC bracketed the judicial selection complaint (assuming that the responcontinue to perform a due diligence on process in a fashion which meaningfully dent doesn't default, a the final candidate, that is, the nominee, not-uncommon enhanced the confidence of the Bench, the occurrence); even if the complainant is but they will do so afer the nominee's Bar, and the public in the women and men permitted to submit a reply, in the name is made public. Therefore, of chosen to preside over our courtrooms. absence of discovery it may be necessity, their results will also be made impos-Through Democratic and Republi-sible to provide specific evidence public (after private notifcation and can administrations alike, the JBC has contradicting respondent's rationale. opportunity to be heard in any case been the Governor's failsafe mechanism, While the UDRP seems to place the where a nominee is preliminarily found the last due diligence performed on the burden of proof squarely on the comnot qualifed). They will continue to intended nominee before the name was plainant with respect to each of the three made public, and the last opportunity for work with as much information as elements, the UDRP somewhat contrapossible, to ensure that their inquiry is members of the Bench and Bar to 'speak dictorily suggests that respondent may properly focussed; but now the informanow or forever hold [their] peace' before have the burden on one issue; in responding a name was placed in public play. As of tion (i.e., the full JNC application) will to a complaint, the respondent's submisbe requested from the nominee directly. the Fall of 2000, that process was short-sion of specifc types of evidence "shall An independent, qualifed judiciary circuited by unilateral fat of the Gover-demonstrate" the respondent's legitimate is far too important for any step in the nor, who, after all, has no legislative rights to the domain." In the face of this selection process to be discarded or obligation to heed the concerns of the apparent conflict, panels have taken eviscerated lightly. The JBC has commitpublic, the Bar or even the current diferent views as to the degree of ted to doing its part. The nominees will Bench when making his judicial evidence necessary and the ease be called upon to do theirs by voluntarily with nominations. Yes, he is within his rights which a complainant can overcome that providing the information which the to make his choices without a review by evidence. The issues are well summarized Governor has chosen to withhold. an independent body focussed on the in Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Eventually, perhaps this Governor or his Web actual nominee, as opposed to the entire (WIPO No. D2000-0624, Aug. 21, 2000), successor, will see his or her way to pool of candidates. Yes, he is within his which involved the domain names rights to withhold from that indepen-causing the Executive branch to do its pollyesthercom and pollyesther net. The part again as well. dent body the full universe of informa-respondent contended (without any tion concerning the intended nominee. Contients can be sent to loan Lukey evidentiary support other than But, the mere fact that he possesses her such at joan.lukey@haledorrcom. certifcation) that she had legitimate rights does not indicate that he is rights in the domain name because justifed, or certainly that he is wise, in "EPsothlleyr" was "a pet name" for the exercising them. When challenged by dreesnpt,o "nb-estowed on her by her father the organized Bar on behalf of lawyers owing to [respondent's[ fondness for and the public, he simply responded that polyester bell-bottom pants." The panel the outcry was "silly," and characterized noted the apparent conflict between the the past efforts of the JBC as a virtual general rule imposing the burden of "technicality," because only a small proof on the complainant and the number of nominees have been found suggestion that the respondent should unqualifed. (After all, what's the bear the burden of proof to establish its difference if there is a bad apple here and own legitimate rights: 16 March/April 2001 Boston BarJournal Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2BOSTON BAR FOUNDATION made personal contributions of$ 10,000. Weare grateful f()r support. I ask to please cOInmending and Foundation thl' their generous commemorative Gift to the Justice Fund in memory of Sumner H. Babcock information packet. please contact Katrin the BBF Office, Street, Boston, MA 02108, or via e-mad at bostonbar.org. Or BBFs www.bostonbarfoundation.E. McGuire .1 ames WilliamJ. T. E. Joseph E. Mullaney Joseph E. Nlullaney III Murtagh William C. Mutterperl Nestor Nicholas Thomas L. P. O'DonneII Stephen H. Oleskey M. Panarella T. Perera John A. F. RL'ck Lauren Stiller Riklecn David P. Rosenblatt Mary Ryan H. .1 oeI Shl'rman Clark R. Smith Richard Soden Nicholas Sommerfeld (~ary Spit.'ss D. Sreinfidd Owen Todd \Villiam VV. Henry \Vhcder Barry B. \Vhite G. W olfnlan (I) B. FrasL'r Lena G. Goldberg F. John P. Hamill D. Hamnwr John P. James C. Heigham Pcrer Hestnes F. F. Hines, HoHman C. Jasse, R. Jones, F. H. L. M. Lee William F. Lee .Ioan A. James Lynch, L. J. Marcellino .1ohn K. Hon. I. Masterman \Vm. McDern10tt vVillard G. McGraw, Jr. McDermott, Chair Adams John E. Beard G. d'Andclot F. VV. Bagen Jeffrey J. Binder Scott Douglas Burke Hon. Nonnit', S. Burnes C. J. W. S. A. Cheever J. Cinquegrana F. Cogan, Michael A. Collora JohnJ. Curtin. Jr. D. A. .1 effrey Dando S. Dittmar M. D. Driscoll. E. E. Douglass N. Ellis, Jr. David Engel J. George P. Field ofthe Bar Society ofFellows have very special cornmitn1ent to Inaking our legal systen1 accessible to all nletnbers ofour con1Illunity. Their ofthe and the pennanent endowInent was established to advance offlir and equal access to the legal justice systeIn, to improve ofjustice, and to educate oflaw ofever-III. Legitimate Rights the Domain Name have offered some quite colorful a legitimate interest in a domain Nicknames and pet names seem to be the favored explanations. As discussed above, the panel in Do The Hustle, LLC took a toward the who nicknamed "Polly Esther," in the absence of any corroborating respondents, fared better. cOIn claimed known The Continued on next page with Panels different approaches. Some directly, that respondents need do nothing if the complainant does not furnish affirmative no respect name at issue. Other Panels have held that the burden complainant is a "relatively light" one as regards proof of [this issue.] Still others have held that the panel should the failure of the respondent to demonstrate Paragraph 4(c), when the Panel assesses met its burden of proof [on on this point the position has this issue, the complainant a prima facie showing, the burden of production concrete that it rights to domain name at issue. omitted). 12 and concluded concrete accepting" bald assertions party, Moreover, it is especially important under [the UORP] procedure to test respondent's for evidentiary support and nonnally no opportunity while the of the complainant. "13 panels toward the burden of proof Do The LLC. The problem is perhaps most acute in cases where respondent offers little or no documentary evidence to support The respondent's technically certification are Yet, concluded they must refrain from evaluating the credibility some panels have nevertheless conduded that the Complainant As significant even in the most seemingly dear cases. Boston Bar Journal 2001 Faced with this seeming contradiction, Panels have taken diferent approaches. Some have held, either effectively or Awl's A011901WIMIM directly, that respondents need do nothing if the complainant does not furish affrmative proof that the 7 -1 respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect Members of the Boston Bar Foundation Society of Fellows have shown a very special commitment to making our legal system accessible of the domain name at issue. Other Panels have taken to all members of our community. Their contributions support the work of the different tacks. Some have held that the burden on the BBF and the permanent endowment fund, which was establshed to advance complainant is a "relatively light" one as regards proof of the goal of fair and equal access to the legal justice system, to improve the Ithis issue.] Still others have held that the panel should administration of justice, and to educate the public about the dynamic role of law in view of ever-changing social and economic norms. assess the failure of the respondent to demonstrate that he comes within Paragraph 4(c), when the Panel assesses The Fellows listed below have made personal contributions of $ I0,000. whether the complainant has met its burden of proof ion We are deeply grateful for their support. I ask you to please join us in commending their foresight and generosity. this issue]. The majority of Panel decisions on this point have taken the position that while the complainant has Wm. Shaw McDermot, Chair the burden of proof on this issue, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production Samuel Adams Richard E. Floor James E. McGuire Edward J. Barshak Samuel Frankenheim Honorable James and shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete Maureen Scannell Robert B. Fraser Katherine McHugh evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Bateman Harvey W. Frcishtat William J. McNally John E. Beard Lena G. Goldberg name at issue. (citations omitted)." John T. Montgomery d'Andelut Belin Louis A. Goodman Michael Mooney The panel took the latter approach, and concluded that the Roberta Benjamin Karen Green Joseph E. respondent had failed to provide "concrete evidence" of her Kenneth W. Bergen Ernest M. Haddad JMouslleapnhe yE. Mullaney Ill IelT'rey J. Binder John P. Hamill Thomas R. Murcagh rights or legitimate interests. The panel held that, rather than John G. Brooks John I). Hamilton, Jr. "blindly accepting" bald assertions by either party, a panel Roy A. Hammer John A. Nadas should require that parties provide documentary evidence or Hon, Nonnie S. BurnesJohn D. Hanify Thomas D. Burns Michael J. Haroz L. O'Donnell third-party declarations in support. Moreover, "it is especially Laurie Burt Mark Harty Stephen H. important under Ithe UDRP] procedure to test Oleskey respondent's Charles C, Cabot James C. Heigham Mary Ellen O'Mara assertions for evidentiary support and credibility, since J. W. Carney, Jr. Irwin M. Heller Merriann Panarclla M. Ellen Carpenter Peter G. Hermes Lawrence T. normally the complainant has no opportunity to counter the Stephen W. Carr Harold Hestnes JPoehrne rAa. Perkins respondent's assertions, while the respondent does have the Truman S. Casner Richard Hiersteiner Rudolph F. Pierce Abigail A. Cheever Keith Higgins Regina M. Pisa opportunity to counter those of the complainant."" R. J. Cinyuegrana Edward Hints. Jr. R. Robert Popeo Unfortunately, not all panels have followed the coherent John V. Cogan. Jr. Christian M. Hoffman Joel M. Reek approach toward the burden of proof laid out in Do The Hustle, Frances S. Cohen Andre C. Jasse, Jr. John R. Regier Michael A. Collora Hugh R. Jones, Jr. Stiller Rikleen L. The problem is perhaps most acute in cases where the Ian Crawford Jeffrey Jones respondent offers little or no documentary evidence to support John J. Curtin. Jr. Michael B. Keating Mary K. Ryan his or her story. The respondent's assertions are technically Paul T. Dacier George H. Kidder William Schmidt Gene D. Dahmen Joseph Kociubes Joel B. supported by the respondent's certifcation that they are Paul P. Daley Martha J. Koster SChlaerrmk aRn. complete and accurate. Yet, at least some panels have con-A. Jeffrey Smith Dando Renee M. Landers Richard A. cluded that they must refrain from evaluating the credibility of Robin and Andrew David H. Lee SNoicdheonlas U. Sommrtfrld Daniels F. Lee Gary A. Spiess that evidence. And, even in the face of a default by the registrant, James S. Dittmar Edward P. Leibensperger Joseph D. Sreinfeld have nevertheless concluded that the Complainant Anthony Doniger Joan A.Lukey C. Thomas Swaim John Donovan. Jr. Hon. James P. Lynch. Jr. J. Owen Tudd had not met its burden. As shown below, these problems may be John P. Driscoll, Jr. Hon. Sandra Lynch John R. Towers signifcant even in the most seemingly dear cases. Robert Duggan and James J. Marcellino William B. Tyler Mary Weber John Markey Herbert W. Vaughan Ill. Legitimate Rights in the Domain Name Thomas F. Dwyer, Jr. Hun, Margaret H. W hec ler Respondents have offered some quite colorful reasons why Douglass N. Ellis, Jr. Marshall B. White David L. Fogel Edward Mastennan Toni Wolfman they have a legitimate interest in a domain name. Nicknames Donald J. Evans Wm. Shaw McDermott Raymond H. Young to be the favored explanations. Field Willard G. McGraw. Jr. Anonymous 1) above, the panel in Do The Hustle, The Boston Bar Foundation would like to thank the skeptical approach toward the respondent who claimed to be Partners of Bingham Dana LLP for their generous eon,memorarivc to the Justice Fund in memory Sumner Babcock Polly Esther," of For an infom,arion packet, please contact Karrin A. Aback in the BBF evidence. Other respondents, however, have fared better. For Development Office. 16 Beacon Street, Boston, MA via a-mail at example, the registrant of penguin.com claimed that he was kaback@boatonbar.org. Or visit the BBF's web site at "for many years known by the nickname Penguin." The panel www,bosronbarfoundation.org. next page BAR FOUNDATION Boston Bar Journal March/April 2001 17 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2Name Disputes accepted his assertion "in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the Complainant." Penguin Books Linlited v. 02000-May 20,2000). Apparently, the unfortunate complainant was expected to disprove that the as "Penguin." See also Finter Bank Zurich v. Gianluca Olivieri, (WIPO 020000091, March 23, 2000) of !inter. COllI finter.org claimed, in response to action by trademark holder, that he had registered nalnes Perhaps the most troubling decision in the nickname/pet name genre is 02000-The Vanguard, had received a British trademark for MIGUARO pharmaceuticals filed a trademark application in the llnited States. 1999, Vanguard MIGlIARD pharmaceutical product. Less than a the domain 11liguard.cOlll. The respondent argued that "Miguard" referred to his "mixed dog, who this moniker ... as a result of the dog's tendency to bark at any within earshot. "14 The respondent asserted that that there was "no basis in the record to discredit" this justification, because the "on hold" the domain registrar at the request, was no way to prove what the respondent would have done with the domain. found it that the on request. I5 18 MarchiApril 2001 A. In General As high as the burden of proof hurdle is for complainant in the context of rights, it appears be of bad faith. examples highlight the difficulties complainants may face in meeting this burden. In Dow Jones & Co. v. The fIephzibah Intro-Net Project. Ltd., WIPO 02000-a case involving the domains Ivallstreet journaleurope. COIIl, lvallstreetjournal interactive. COlli and two to resolve the dispute based solely on the in the complaint. correspondence cOlnplainant respondent in which the latter claimed non-profit had registered the domains as part of its persons in East London "in the creation of long name web-sites" (a heretofore least).16 Notwithstanding the default, the panel the complainant had failed to prove bad faith registration, because the respondent had asserted that correspondence that it had registered the domains in good faith as part of a teaching exercise. Although correspondence did not "carry the same weight as a properly certified assertion in ... which belief. Respondent should choose an actual long nalne purpose of its teaching." The panel noted that the complainant had not questioning purported business. 17 In Reuters Ltd. v. Ghee Khaan Tan (WIPO No. 02000-0670, Aug. 4, 2000), another case involving an established Reuters transfer of the domain ereuterS.COIlI, which the Respondent, an individual in Singapore, had registered purportedly as of his good faith, panel concluded it could not find bad registration ci rcumstances: For the Panel to hold that the The it in bad faith, the Panel has to reject denial and find that he has not told the truth. That very serious finding to have in circumstances such as these where there is next to no on the Respondent Panel and where the Panel has no the Respondent evidence has to be overwhelmingly While, as indicated above, the Panel why is suspicious, the Panel finds that the is insufficient purpose. I') Thus, as in Dow Jones, the panel credited a questionable explanation for the registration of a domain that mimicked a famous mark. supra, held that the Complainant had not met its proofon the element. Although agreeing timing registration after the Complainant had announced its MIGUARO pharmaceutical product been employed in the pharmaceutical industry were "suspicious," the panel "[s)uspicion alone, cannot suffice is acting in bad faith. "20 Notably, the panel concluded that the the assertions cOlnplainant and respondent Ivere in conflict to hold complainant had failed to cany its burden of proof21 Boston Bar Journal Domain Name Disputes IV. Bad Faith a "forum for maid improvement Continued from page 15 A. In General discussions."18 The Respondent provided As high as the burden of proof no evidence of his good faith, other than accepted his assertion "in the absence of hurdle is for complainant in the context his unsupported assertions. Still, the any rebuttal evidence from the Comof legitimate rights, it appears to be even panel concluded it could not fnd bad plainant." Penguin Books limited v. The higher in the context of bad faith. Two faith registration and use under the Katz Family and Anthony Katz (WIPO examples highlight the difculties circumstances: No. D2000-0204, May 20, 2000). complainants may face in meeting this For the Panel to hold that the Apparently, the unfortunate complainant burden. In pow Zones & Co. v. The Respondent registered The Domain was expected to disprove that the Ilcphzibah Intro-Net Project. Ltd., Name in bad faith and is now using respondent was in fact known as (WJPO No. D2000-0704, Sept. 4, 2000), it in bad faith, the Panel has to reject "Penguin." S also Finter Bank Zurich a case involving the domains wallstreet the Respondent's denial and fnd v Gianluca Olivied (WIPO D2000-journaleurope.com, wallstreetjournal that he has not told the truth. That 0091, March 23, 2000) (registrant of interactive.com and two others, the is a very serous fnding to have to respondent defaulted, leaving the panel come to in circumstances such as domain names fntercom and fnter.org claimed, in response to action by to resolve the dispute based solely on the these where there is next to no trademark holder, that he had registered evidence in the complaint. That information on the Respondent and domain names to honor his pet dog evidence included correspondence his business in the papers before the "Ruby der Finter"). between the complainant and the Panel and where the Panel has no respondent in which the latter claimed opportunity of examining the Perhaps the most troubling decision in the nickname/pet name genre is that it was a non-proft organization and demeanour of the Respondent. For Vanguard Medica Ltd. v. Theo had registered the domains as part of its the Panel to hold that the Respondent is a liar, the circumstantial McCormick (WIPO No. D2000-0067, program of training unemployed evidence has to be overwhelmingly Apr. 3, 2000). The complainant, Van-persons in East London "in the guard, had received a British trademark corfe loantiogn name web-sites" (a heretofore in favour of the Complainant. registration for MIGUARD in 1997 in unrecognized web specialty, to say the While, as indicated above, the Panel connection with pharmaceuticals and least).16 Notwithstanding the understands why the Complainant filed a trademark application in the respondent's default, the panel held that is suspicious, the Panel fnds that the United States. In 1999, Vanguard the complainant had failed to prove bad evidence is insuffcient for that publicly announced the MILLIARD faith registration, because the respondent purpose." pharmaceutical product. Less than a had asserted in that correspondence that it Thus, as in Dow tones. the panel credited a questionable explanation for the week after that announcement, the had registered the domains in good faith respondent registered the domain as part of a teaching exercise. Although registration of a domain that mimicked a miguard.conr. The respondent argued the panel acknowledged that the world-famous mark. that "Miguard" referred to his "mixed correspondence did not "carry the same The panel in Vanguard, sstpra held breed dog, who earned this moniker ---weight as a properly certifed assertion in that the Complainant had not met its as a result of the dog's tendency to bark at a formal Response, ... it is not an burden of proof on the bad faith eleany noticeable event within sight or assertion which beggars belief. It does ment. Although agreeing that the timing earshot."" The respondent asserted that not stretch credulity that Respondent of the domain registration one week he planned to use the domain for a web should choose an actual long name after the Complainant had announced site devoted to his dog. The Panel held which has come to its attention for its MIGUARD pharmaceutical product purpose of its teaching." The panel and the fact that the Respondent had that there was "no basis in the record to discredit" this justifcation, because the noted that the complainant had not been employed employed in the pharmaceutical industry were "suspicious," the panel domain had been placed "on hold" by produced any evidence questioning the bona fides of the respondent's purported concluded that "isluspicion alone, registrar complainant's request, and thus there business.'? however, cannot sufice to prove that was no way to prove what the respon-In Reuters Ltd. v Ghee Khaan Tan Respondent is acting in bad faith." dent would have done with the domain. (WJPO No. D2000-0670, Aug. 4, 2000), Notably, the panel concluded that the The Panel found it "ironic" that the site another case involving an established mere fact that the assertions made by the had been placed on hold at the media icon, Reuters failed to achieve the complainant and respondent were in conflict Complainant's request.15 transfer of the domain ereuters.cam, required the panel to hold that the comwhich the Respondent, an individual in plainant had failed to carry its burden porfoof 2' Singapore, had registered purportedly as 18 March/Apri12001 Boston Bar Journal Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2... • Backgrounds • Competitive Intelligence Guardianship • Sexual Harassment • Surveillance 'Azzaro' trademark when registering the No evidence whatsoever has been submitted to sustain this assertion. "23 Unless the panel expected the complainant somehow to furnish an admission from the respondent, it is difficult to see the rationale for this decision. See also State Fair ofTexas v. Sports NAP Nov. (despite complainant's evidence of registration of BIG TEX trademark and of associated promotional character for over 50 years throughout respondent's home state of in connection the state panel concluded that complainant "has of the Respondent "Big-Tex"). v. Conclusion At first blush, it is difficult to fathom why some panels have taken such a rigid view of the complainant's burden of in the face what seems blatant cyber squatting. Apart from the apparent reluctance of some panels to Continued on page 20 info@simmonsagency.• Accidents • Assets • Child Custody Due Elder Abuse Agency, Inc. Boston, MA02111-4315 and Criminal Investigations Since 1935 American Airlines, Inc. v. Barbara Pindle (NAF No. FA0010000095829, Nov. 28, (where respondent's stated intended use of aaflightseroice.conl domain name was to provide a noncommercial website and forum for flight attendants, and where respondent claimed it used letters "aa" merely to be listed at the front of business directories, complainant and stated it would appear that the Respondent knew or should have known of the famous mark AA"). But see Vanguard, supra (finding for respondent even where he had prior engagement pharmaceutical in which mark was used). However, even the quite rational suggested foundered on the rocks of the unnecessarily high burden of proof applied by some In Loris Azzaro BV, v. Asterix (WIPO No. 02000-0608, Sept. 4, 2000), for instance, the complainant, a registration and use of its widely-used the respondent's home country of Brazil dating back to respondent defaulted. One have especially in light of the default, the principle (enacted or accepted in almost every jurisdiction) that registration of a notice to all infringers.22 respondent, concluding: "It is unclear whether of Complainant's B. Knowledge ofMark An issue bad faith determination is whether the panel is convinced that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's trademark before registering a similar or identical domain name. While the does specifically list this factor as understandably Where a respondent denies prior complainant has not produced evidence of registration or substantial use of the mark in the respondent's geographical area, the decisions tend to credit the respondent's denial. Comexpo Paris v. A. (WIPO 02000-Sept. 11, 2000) (where trademark was well known in France, panel concluded that "while this fact could lead to a in case domain name had been registered by a same presumption cannot automatically be vis Net-Com AG v. Jacques Favre, Patrice Collette Associates (WIPO No. 020000635, 22, 2000) in Switzerland denied prior knowledge of mark and German complainant did of simply to infer that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's Conversely, where there is a registration or use in the respondent's and the panel is more likely to find that registration of the domain name was in bad faith. Grundfos A/S v. Lokale (WIPO 02000-27, 2000) (complainant's registration and significant sales in respondent's home country of Poland, and concluding, "At the time have been aware of Complainant's business in The familiarity of the respondent field of the complainant's business is also a relevant factor. See,~, 2001 B. Knowledge of Mark American Airlines, Inc. v. Barbara Pindle Azzaro' trademark when registering the An important issue underlying the (NAF No. FA0010000095829, Nov. 28, Domain Name ... No evidence whatsobad faith determination is whether the 2000) (where respondent's stated ever has been submitted to sustain panel is convinced that the this respondent intended use of aafiightservice.com assertion."u Unless the panel expected had knowledge of the complainant's domain name was to provide a non-the complainant somehow to furnish an trademark before registering a similar or commercial website and forum for fight admission from the respondent, it is identical domain name. While the attendants, and where respondent difcult to see the rationale for this UDRP (unfortunately, in our view) does claimed it used letters "aa" merely to be decision. State Fair of Texas not specifcally list this factor as one listed at the front of business directories, BigTex Sports (NAPv .No. counting toward bad faith, it is under-panel found for complainant and stated FA0010000095851, Nov 20, 2000) standably a key issue in many decisions. that "it would appear that the Respon-(despite complainant's evidence of Where a respondent denies prior dent knew or should have known of the registration of BIG TEX trademark and knowledge of a mark and the complain-Complainant's famous mark AA). Bul extensive use of mark and associated ant has not produced evidence of see Vanguard, supra (finding for responpromotional character for over 50 years registration or substantial use of the dent even where he had prior engagement throughout respondent's home state of mark in the respondent's geographical in pharmaceutical business in which Texas in connection with the state fair, area, the decisions tend to credit the MIGUARD mark was used). panel concluded that complainant has respondent's denial. Comexpo Paris Y However, even the quite rational not disproven the claim of the Respon-Visiotex S.A. (WIPO No. D2000-0792, principles suggested above have foun-dent that he had never previously heard Sept. 11, 2000) (where trademark was dered on the rocks of the unnecessarily of Complainant's "Big Tex"). well known in France, panel concluded high burden of proof applied by some V. Conclusion that "while this fact could lead to a panels. In Loris Azzaro BV SARL v At first blush, it is diffcult to fathom presumption of bad faith in case the Asterix (WIPO No. D2000-0608, Sept. 4, why some panels have taken such a rigid domain name had been registered by a 2000), for instance, the complainant, a view of the complainant's burden of French citizen or company, this same Dutch company, provided evidence of its proof in the face of what seems to be presumption cannot automatically be registration and use of its widely-used blatant cyber squatting. Apart from the made vis-a-vis a US/Israeli registrant"); AZZARO mark in the respondent's apparent reluctance of some panels Net-Com AG v. lacgues Favre. to Patrice home country of Brazil dating back to Continued an page Collette Associates (WIPO No. 20 D2000-1978. The 0635, Aug. 22, 2000) (where respondent respondent in Switzerland denied prior knowledge defaulted. One of mark and German complainant did would have not provide details regarding extent of thought that, use of mark, panel was "not prepared especially in light simply to infer that the Respondent must of the default, the have known of the Complainant's panelist would business"). have applied the Simmons Agency, Inc. Conversely, where there is a principle (enacted registration or use in the respondent's or accepted in 200 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 021114315 home area, prior knowledge is presumed almost every and the panel is more likely to fnd that jurisdiction) that Civil and Criminal Investigations Since 1935 registration of the domain name was in registration of a Investigations on: bad faith. Grundfos A/S v Lokale (WIPO mark provides • Accidents • Backgrounds No. D2000-1347, Nov. 27, 2000) (noting constructive • Assets • Competitive Intelligence complainant's registration and signif-notice to all • Child Custody • Guardianship cant sales in respondent's home country infringers 22 • Due Diligence • Sexual Harassment of Poland, and concluding, "At the time Nevertheless, the • Elder Abuse • Surveillance of the registration respondent must have panel ruled for the been aware of Complainant's business in respondent, And more ... Poland"). concluding: "It is The familiarity of the respondent unclear whether Tel. (617) 523-2288 with the feld feld of the complainant's Respondents knew Fax (617) 695-1815 business is also a relevant factor. Sew of Complainant's Email: info@simmonsagency.com Boston Bar Journal March/April 2001 19 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2Domain Name Disputes Continued from page 19 probably lies in the limited purpose of which eliminating abusive disputes" to the courtS.24 SOlne to disputes" to include any case where the view, Panels should not hesitate to order transfers not only in thirdparty or documentary corroboration. The fact remains that complainants have to date prevailed in the vast of UDRP cases. Nevertheless, of the UDRP, have become more savvy often refraining from explicit offers for thereby robbing Complainants evidence faith under the UDRP. In contemplating a UDRP proceeding, the speed and inexpensiveness of the lJDRP for to gamer sufficient prove its case. Endnotes I According to the Second Staff Report on Implen1entation Documents for the Uniform Second Report"), the UDRP was intended to "establish a streamlined, inexpensive administrative dispute-resolution procedure." See www.iean1l.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report240ct99. htl". 2 1, 2 (located at www. ieann/lldrp/udrp-policy-240et99.htllt). 1 See Summary Status of Proceedings located at wtvw.icann.org/udrp/proeeedings-stat.htm. The 4 UDRP 4(k), 5; see also Broadbridge Media, L.L.C. v. Hypercd.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 505, 508-09 (S.D.N.V. 2000) (filing LIDRP complaint does not waive right to proceed in federal court); Weber-Stephen Prods. Co. v. Armitage Hardware & Bldg. Supply, Inc., (N.D. 3,2000) court not bound by ICANN proceedings but decl ining to decide "what degree of deference (if any) we would give that decision."). 2001 5 I. 7 Rules for Uniform Domain Na01e Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP Rules") 3(b)(xiv), b)(viii) (located at www.iean1t.org/lldrp/lldrprllles-240et99.htm ). 8 UDRP 4(a). ') Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web No. 02000-0624, Aug. 21, 2000), 6.6. 1) UDRP Rules, 12. Of the four arbitration providers approved by ICANN, only one makes provision for the filing of a reply by the cOlTIplainant (albeit in exchange for an additional fee of $150). See NAF Supplemental Rules, 7 (located at www.arbfonn.eom/domains/dOl1tain-ndes.1ttntl). However, in our experience some panelists for the other three providers will at least review unrequested reply submissions in order to detennine their relevancy. 11 U0 RP 4.c provides that any of three specified cirCUlnstances "shall demonstrate rthe registrant's I rights or legitimate interests to the dOlnain of Paragraph 4(a)(ii)." u Hustle, 6.8-6.11. 13 14 Vanguard, 5.B(3). 15 Id. 6.B, third paragraph. 16 Dow Jones, 4.6(a). 17 Id. 7.3, third paragraph. IB Reuters, 19 Id. 6, last paragraph. Xl Vanguard, 6.B, fifth paragraph. 21 Id., sixth paragraph. 22 See, ~, 15 U.S.C. § 1072. 23 Loris Azzaro, 6.c(4). 24 Second Staff Report 4.1 (with Requirements Continued froln page 6 are § 114(d)(1)(A) of lIntil recently, holders of such the use songs added to the Copyright Congress to protect record companies against loss of revenue from free online of music. See Grossman in adding the sixth right to recording artists protection sound recording celtain types of webcasters. See Birenz,_supra, at 20. limited digital and is limited subscription transmissions -i.e., registered, users Grossman of these limitations, left the door wide to lays statutoI)' webcasters. 1 DMCA, webcasters listeners. C. § 114(d)(2). To requirement that a service be noninteractive, a webcaster must ensure that a listener cannot select particular songs or artists to input on songs selected, such as or style of listen to, e.g., contemporary country or See Dov H. Scherzer, Statutory Fee Issues for Online Recordings, 9 ENT. L. & FIN. services the DMCA provision to include nonsubscription services -those webcasters whose log listen but need not be registered, paying users of the site. 17 U.S.C. § 114(d)(2). Astatutory webcaster because it means that instead licenses each song, a webcaster may simply file notice the a set oversee the collection and payment of royalties for site at http://www.riaa.comj A statutory license is equally the record the recording artists) who Domain Name Disputes UDRP 4(a). transmission, and is limited further to UDRP 4(b), 4(c). Continued from page 19 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute subscription transmissions -i.e., Resolution Policy ('UDRP Rules") 3(b)(xiv), transmissions to registered, paying users brand a respondent a "liar," the answer 5(b)(viii) (located at wwwicann.org/udrp/udrprules-240ct99.htm). of a service. See Grossman and Oliver, probably lies in the limited purpose of 8 UDRP 4(a), supra. Because of these limitations, the the UDRP, which was aimed at eliminat-v Do The Hustle. LLC T?opic Web (WIPO No. D2000-0624, Aug, 21, 2000), 6.6. DPRA left the door wide open for the ing "abusive registration" while leaving See 11DRP Rules, 12. Of the four arbitration amendments to the Copyright Act "legitimate disputes' to the courts.24 providers approved by ]CANN, only one makes contained in the DMCA, which lays out provision for the fling of a reply by the Clearly, however, this has led at least complainant (albeit in exchange for an a comprehensive scheme of statutory some panels to consider "legitimate additional fee of $ 150). Ses NAF Supplemental licensing for non-subscription disputes" to include any case where the Rules, 7 (located at wtuwarbfrzn.com/dornains/domain-rules.htrnl). However, in our webcasters.' respondent has denied the experience some panelists for the other three Under the DMCA, webcasters complainant's allegations. In our view, providers will at least review unrequested reply submissions in order to determine their providing a nonsubscription, this approach is wrong and undermines relevancy. noninteractive service may obtain a the usefulness of the UDRP procedure. " LID RP 4.c provides that any of three specifed statutory or compulsory license for circumstances 'shall demonstrate [the Panels should not hesitate to order registrant's) rights or legitimate interests to the sound recording copyrights on works domain transfers where trademarks are domain for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii).' they wish to stream to listeners. 17 strong and the Respondent's denials are not n Do The Hustle. 6.8-6,11. u Id. 6.14. U.S.C. § 114(d)(2). To meet the requireonly implausible, but also lacking in third-Vgaunard. 5.6(3). ment that a service be noninteractive, a party or documentary corroboration. 's ). 6.6, third paragraph. Dow Tones. 4.6(a). webcaster must ensure that a listener The fact remains that complainants RL 7.3, third paragraph. cannot select particular songs or artists to have to date prevailed in the b Reuters. 5.B. vast hI 6. last paragraph. listen to, but instead may only have majority of UDRP cases. Nevertheless, ID Vanguard, 6.B, fifth paragraph. limited input on songs selected, such as since adoption of the UDRP, cyber d IL sixth paragraph. choosing a genre or style of music to 32 Ss gg., 15 U.S.C. § 1072. squatters have become more savvy -Loris Azzaro. 6.c(4). listen to, e.g., contemporary country or often refraining from explicit offers for " Second Staf Report 4.1(c). alternative rock. See Dov H. Scherzer, sale, thereby robbing Complainants of Statutory Fee Issues for Online their most compelling evidence of bad 9R eEcrorrr.d Lin. g&s ,Fu'. 1 (December 1999). faith under the UDRP. In contemplating Complying with Subscription services were already the commencement of a UDRP proceed-Requirements allowed the statutory license under the ing, a trademark holder should carefully Continued from page 6 DPRA, and the DMCA broadened this consider the evidence it has, and weigh provision to include nonsubscription the speed and inexpensiveness of the who are exempt from such licensing services -those webcasters whose UDRP procedure against the need for requirements under § 114 (d) (1) (A) of listeners merely log on to a web site to discovery to garner suffcient evidence to the Copyright Act. Until recently, the listen but need not be registered, paying prove its case. sound recording copyright only offered C. § d)(an artist protection against unauthorized A statutory license is desirable to the Endnotes copying, and record companies, the ` According to the Second Staf Report on webcaster because it means that instead Implementation Documents for the Uniform main holders of such copyrights, were of negotiating individual licenses for Dispute Resolution Policy ("Second Staff uncompensated for the use of the songs Report"), the UDRP was intended to "establish each song, a webcaster may simply fle a streamlined, inexpensive administrative made by radio stations. an initial notice with the Copyright dispute-resolution procedure.' See The DPRA added to the Copyright uwuw. icutrn.org/udrp/udrp-second-staffreport-Office and pay the royalties in a set 24Oct99. htrn. Act limited protections in an attempt by amount to the Recording Industry 1 UDRP, 1, 2 (located at wwwicann/org/udrp/Congress to protect record udrp-po1icy.24 Oct99. companies h tin) . Association of America (RIAA), the 3 5= Summary Status of Proceedings located at against loss of revenue from free online organization chosen by the Copyright wunu.icunn.org/udrp/proceedings-s tat.htm, The distribution of music. See Grossman figures provided are as of December 12, 2000. Office to oversee the administration, 4 UDRP 4(k), 5; s also Broadbridge1viedi& and Oliver, supra. The DPRA, in adding collection and payment of royalties for LLC, v. H,yoercd.com. 106 E Supp. 2d 505, the sixth right to recording artists sound recordings under the DMCA. (See 508-09 (S.D.N.Y 2000) (filing UDRP referred to above, created a new protec-complaint does not waive right to proceed in RIAA web site at http://wwwriaa.com/federal court); Weber-Stephen Prods. Co. tion for sound recording copyright music-rules-3.cfm). A. mitase Hardware $1 Bidg Supply Inc 2000 holders and a statutory license for certain WL 562470 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2000) (holding A statutory license is equally court not bound by ICANN proceedings but types of webcasters. See Birenz,,supra, at important to the record companies (and declining to decide "what degree of deference (if 219-20. The protection is limited to any) we would give that decision."). in some cases, the recording artists) who public performances via a digital audio 20 March/April 2001 Boston Bar Journal Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6272939-9b9c-4ecb-bdb9-7721e55cf4d2