Baker & Daniels v. DefaultData.com
Claim Number: FA0202000104579
PARTIES
The
Complainant is Baker & Daniels,
Indianapolis, IN (“Complainant”) represented by Robert S. Meitus, of Baker
& Daniels. The Respondent is DefaultData.com, Denver, CO (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <bakeranddaniels.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Estella
S. Gold, Esquire as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on February 8, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 8, 2002.
On
February 13, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain name <bakeranddaniels.com>
is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Network
Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions,
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
February 14, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of March 6, 2002 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@bakeranddaniels.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 6, 2002.
On March 15, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Estella S. Gold,
Esquire as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to
the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Plaintiff
is a law firm in Indianapolis, Indiana, which has been using the name “Baker
& Daniels” since approximately 1890 in interstate commerce. Complainant owns United States Trademark
Registration No. 1,635,100 for the service mark BAKER & DANIELS, which
registration issued on February 12, 1991.
Respondent
registered the domain name at issue <bakeranddaniels.com> in
approximately February 2000, without Complainant’s authorization. Complainant
alleges that its business has been disparaged, and its good reputation damaged
by the content of Respondent’s website at <bakeranddaniels.com>.
Respondent’s
website contains different content at different times, but a printout of
Respondent’s site state inter alia, “Greed is good!”; “We bend over for
you…because you bend over for us!”; “Parasites no soul…no conscience…no
spine…NO PROBLEM.”
B.
Respondent
Respondent
does not dispute Complainant’s registration, status of the trademark with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, content of its sites, or duration of
use in commerce of Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has neither currently nor in the past had any relationship,
legitimate right or interest between Respondent’s business and Complainant’s
business. Respondent contends that his
right to use and own <bakeranddaniels.com> is grounded in the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, allowing him to express criticism and
opinions. Respondent alleges that he
has not acted in bad faith, because he has never made any commercial use of
<bakeranddaniels.com>.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds:
1. Respondent’s registration of <bakeranddaniels.com>
is equivalent to the Baker & Daniels registered trademark as well as the
Baker & Daniels common law trademark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the Complaint’s BAKER & DANIELS mark.
3. Respondent’s domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)
the 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
Panel finds that the name in dispute, <bakeranddaniels.com> is
confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant
contends that unless the Complainant’s trademark is at least, in part, the
target of Respondent’s parody, then Respondent’s work is not a legal “parody.”
Respondent’s use of this domain name is not a “parody.” A “parody” is defined as a “simple form of
entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the
trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner.” People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vs. Doughney, 263 F.3rd,
357, 365(4th Cir. 2001).
There is no juxtaposition here with the domain name. Also, in this case, Complainant’s trademark
is never mentioned on Respondent’s website.
See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510
U.S. 569, 127 L. Ed. 2d 500, 114 Ct. 1164, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961, 1969 (1994).
Respondent
contends that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name because the equal access provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th
Amendment must provide Baker & Daniels employees and partners their
Constitutional free speech forum, and should those individuals not have the
resources to reserve the disputed domain name for themselves, Respondent must
be allowed to register it for them.
The Panel finds that Respondent has never, nor is it currently operating
the website located at the disputed domain name for employees of Baker &
Daniels.
In
addition, because Respondent’s domain name merely incorporates Complainant’s
trademark, the domain name does not constitute a protectable, communicative
message. (“Whether a particular domain
name is entitled to protection under the First Amendment depends on the extent
of its communicative message.” Name Space, Inc. vs. Network Solutions, Inc.,
202 F.3rd 573,(2nd Circuit 2000). Respondent has chosen to use the Baker &
Daniels mark to deceive Internet users into believing they were accessing Baker
& Daniels’ websites. Such use of
the mark is not protected by the First Amendment. (“Use of another’s trademark is entitled to First Amendment
protection only when the use of that mark is part of a communicative message,
not when it is used merely to identify the source of a product.”) Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
vs. Bucci, 1997 WL133313(S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Under
15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1)(B)(i), several factors must be considered to determine
whether a respondent acted in bad faith. Among the factors to be considered are
“the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person
or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; the person’s
prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering
of any goods and services; and the person’s intent to divert consumers from the
marks owner’s online location to a site acceptable under the domain name that
could harm the good will represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or
with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of
confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the
site…” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals at 367. In one case before the Panel, the name
“Baker & Daniels” originated from individuals who are partners in that law
firm, and these names have been in use since approximately 1890. Furthermore, the substantial prior use of
the mark by the law firm is in connection with the bona fide offering of
services. The content of the
Respondent’s website is clearly with an intent to tarnish or disparage the law
firm’s services, thereby disparaging the source of the services in use of the
mark. Since the Respondent appears, by implication, to be criticizing lawyers,
it is evident that the Respondent intended the confused consumer to read that
negative message in the contents of the site.
DECISION
Respondent shall transfer the
domain name <bakeranddaniels.com> to Complainant. Rule 3(b)(x).
Estella S. Gold, Esquire, Panelist
Dated: March 27, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page