Fahim Saleh v. Trey Glauser
Claim Number: FA0909001283115
PARTIES
Complainant is Fahim Saleh (“Complainant”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <prankdialer.com>, <prankdials.com>,
and <prankdial.org>,
registered with Tucows Inc.
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. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on September 7, 2009; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 18, 2009.
On September 8, 2009, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <prankdialer.com>, <prankdials.com>,
and <prankdial.org>
domain names are registered with Tucows Inc.
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Tucows Inc.
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows
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 September 22, 2009, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 13, 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@prankdialer.com, postmaster@prankdials.com, and postmaster@prankdial.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 13, 2009.
On October 15, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
PrankDial.com was registered on August 7, 2006. The PrankDial mark was first used in commerce
on August 20, 2006. Since that time, the
site has generated consistent user traffic and ad revenues. On August 23, 2009 PrankDial.com filed for a
trademark from the US Patent and Trademark Office for the PRANKDIAL mark.
PrankDial is a site that allows users to prank call friends through an
online interface. PrankDial is a free
service with the option for users to purchase additional features. PrankDial is the leading prank service
website on the internet in both traffic and online recognition.
PrankDialer.com, PrankDials.com, and PrankDial.org are all similar to
both the PRANKDIAL trademark and the PRANKDIAL.com domain. These domains do not have any substantial
difference from the PrankDial mark.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the
domains, as the domains have intent to generate profit. This is evidenced by the fact that the
Respondent offers “paid tokens” and also places advertising throughout the
site. The Respondent is also
misleadingly diverting traffic from PRANKDIAL.COM to his own domains.
The Respondent has a history of registering domains that are
confusingly similar to PRANKDIAL.COM, in order to profit from the goodwill of
the PRANKDIAL mark. PRANKDIAL has given
no prior authorization to the Respondent to use the PRANKDIAL mark in any
way. Glauser has also acquired the
domain prankdial.biz, simply redirecting the domain to the main PRANKDIALER.COM
site. Prankdial.info is also a redirect
to PRANKDIALER.COM, although this domain is not owned by Glauser.
B. Respondent
When PrankDialer.com was launched on April 1, 2008, the Complainant’s
site PrankDial.com was getting minimal traffic, believed to be non-functioning
and did not compete in any way with PrankDialer.com.
The Complainant’s “in commerce on August 20, 2006” claim c
PrankDial.com offered a text to speech to phone service, while
PrankDialer.com was a Rick Roll by phone service, which is entirely
different. Mr. Glauser, the Respondent,
had no knowledge of the existence of PrankDial.com, or any site belonging to
Mr. Saleh at the time of launch.
PrankDial.com has no active or legally binding trademark. Like PrankDial.com, PrankDialer.com has a
pending active trademark.
On August 1, 2008, Mr. Saleh contacted Mr. Glauser. This was the first time PrankDial.com was
brought to Mr. Glauser’s attention.
Around July 2009, Mr. Saleh plagiarized PrankDialer.com and re-launched
PrankDial.com using much of the exact content and many of the “pranks”
originated by PrankDialer.com.
PrankDialer.com is a recognized brand.
PrankDialer.com is linked and referenced in 3 Wikipedia articles.
PrankDialer.com has thousands of news appearances, radio mentions,
forum discussions, blog posts, etc. PrankDialer
has also been featured by the popular youtube ch
The other domains listed in this claim were not registered by Mr.
Glauser, but by fans of PrankDialer.com who heard of Mr. Saleh’s threats. Ownership of these domains were then
transferred to Mr. Glauser.
FINDINGS
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel
finds the relief requested by Complainant should be denied.
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.
Respondent contends that Complainant does not
have common law rights in the PRANKDIAL mark, as Complainant has not proven
that the user traffic and ad revenue, upon which Complainant bases his
contention of secondary meaning through use in commerce, actually stems from
Complainant’s use of the PRANKDIAL mark. Respondent contends that Complainant owns
several websites resolving from other domain names, and that these websites
most likely share a Google AdSense account with Complainant’s
<prankdial.com> domain name.
Therefore, Respondent contends that these, and not the website resolving
from the <prankdial.com> are very possibly the source of the user traffic
and ad revenue figures that Complainant has put in evidence. The Panel finds that Complainant has not
shown sufficient evidence that the PRANKDIAL mark has been used in commerce
enough to acquire secondary meaning, and the Panel finds that Complainant has
not established common law rights in the PRANKDIAL mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Occidental Hoteles
Mgmt., S.A., & Corictal II, S.A. v. Hargrave Arts, LLC, FA 959645 (Nat.
Arb. Forum May 21, 2007) (finding that the Complainant did not submit sufficient
evidence showing that its OCCIDENTAL mark had acquired the necessary secondary
meaning for it to establish common law rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Telecom Italia S.p.A. v. NetGears LLC, FA 944807 (Nat.
Arb.Forum May 16, 2007) (finding that when a disputed domain name, such as
<187.com>, is made up entirely of generic or common terms, “good evidence
will be needed to show a significant secondary meaning and, above all, one
associated with Complainant.”).
Complainant has not proven this element.
Since the Panel concluded that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because Complainant does not have rights in the mark, the Panel will not analyze the other two elements of the Policy. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the Complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the Complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2006) (deciding not to inquire into the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the Complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
DECISION
Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required
under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <prankdialer.com>, <prankdials.com>,
and <prankdial.org> domain names be REMAIN WITH
Respondent.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 29, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum