Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods v.
Rafael Navarro da Cunha
Claim Number: FA0902001245906
PARTIES
Complainant is Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods (“Complainant”), represented by Julie
Lewis-Sroka, of IMG Worldwide, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tigerwoodslifestyle.com>, registered
with Universo
Online S.A.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving
as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on
On
On February 24, 2009, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 16, 2009 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@tigerwoodslifestyle.com by
e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on
On
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant is a professional golfer with a worldwide
reputation. He has achieved great
prominence in his sport. He is
well-known throughout the world through media exposure, particularly from the
coverage of golf tournaments, exhibitions and charity events. The name “TIGER WOODS” is registered with the
US Patent & Trade Mark Office. The
registration is dated
The Complaint ought, strictly speaking, to have been brought in the
name of
The Respondent has no rights to use the name “Tiger Woods”. When an internet user wishes to visit the
website accessed by the disputed domain name, the user will see an offer for
the sale of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the “Tiger Woods” name and
there is no evidence of any preparations by the Respondent in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or
services using the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith. It was registered on
B. Respondent
The Respondent does not contest the allegations made in the Complaint
and does not contest the transfer of the disputed domain name, as requested by
the Complainant. On
The Respondent makes no admission with respect to any matter concerning
the alleged use of the Complainant’s marks and reserves any applicable defences
in respect thereof.
FINDINGS
(a)
The
Complainant has indirect rights in a registered trademark for the words TIGER
WOODS and direct rights in a common law trademark for the words TIGER WOODS.
(b)
The
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
(c)
The
Respondent has no rights or interest in the disputed domain name.
(d)
The
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(e)
The
Respondent does not oppose the relief requested by the Complainant.
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.
However, where a respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed
domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the
immediate transfer of the disputed domain name.
See
The same approach can be found in WIPO decisions such as Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. VEZ-Port (D2000-0207)
and Slumberland France v. Acohuri
(D2000-0195).
Because the Respondent has indicated that he does not contest the
transfer of the disputed domain name but did not actually say he consented to
the transfer, it is proper to record by way of a summary the finding:
(a)
The
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark;
(b)
The
Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name and has not suggested any
matter which would bring it within paragraph 4(c) of the Policy;
(c)
The
registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, as is
witnessed by the approach by the Respondent, shortly after registering the
disputed domain name to the Complainant to sell the disputed domain name and
the notation on the website that the disputed domain name is for sale.
A finding in summary form on the three Policy criteria is justified by
the Respondent’s lack of contest.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tigerwoodslifestyle.com> domain name
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, Panelist
Dated:
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page