ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS DISPUTE
RESOLUTION POLICY
DECISION
Michael
Douglas v. Chris Vogal
Claim Number: FA0211000132438
PARTIES
Complainant
is Michael Douglas, Los Angeles, CA, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Martin
Schwimmer. Respondent is Chris Vogel,
Dundas, Ontario, CANADA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED REGISTERED NAMES
The
Registered Names at issue are <michael.douglas.name> and <michael@douglas.name>,
registered with VeriSign, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge, she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on November 8, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 12, 2002.
On
November 13, 2002, VeriSign, Inc.confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
Registered Names <michael.douglas.name>
and <michael@douglas.name> are registered with VeriSign, Inc.
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the Registered Names. VeriSign, Inc. has verified that Respondent
is bound by the VeriSign, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to
resolve registered name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (“ERDRP”).
On
November 22, 2002 a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of December 12, 2002, by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with 2(a) of the Rules
of Procedure for the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“ERDRP Rules”).
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
December 31, 2002, pursuant to ERDRP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson as the single Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibilities under Paragraph 2(a)
of the ERDRP Rules. Therefore, the
Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance
with the ERDRP, ERDRP Rules, the Forum’s ERDRP Supplemental Rules and any rules
and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of
any Response from Respondent.
Complainant
requests that the Registered Names be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant pursuant to Policy 5(f)(i)(B).
A. Complainant makes the following allegations:
Complainant
asserts that Respondent registered <michael.douglas.name> and <michael@douglas.name>
in violation of the Eligibility Requirements because of the following
reasons: Respondent’s legal name is not
Michael Douglas.
Respondent
owns no trademark or service mark rights to a fictional character named Michael
Douglas. Respondent is not commonly known by the name Michael Douglas.
Complainant
also asserts that his legal name is Michael Douglas and therefore he has rights
in the domain names registered by Respondent,
<michael.douglas.name> and <michael@douglas.name>.
B. Respondent did not submit a response.
Complainant’s
legal name is Michael Douglas.
Complainant has submitted his passport as proof of this fact.
Respondent,
Christian Vogel, registered the Registered Names in dispute January 15,
2002. Complainant’s investigation
discovered no evidence that Respondent uses the name Michael Douglas for any
purpose. Respondent has registered
numerous Registered Names of famous celebrities such as Complainant including:
<mick.jagger.name>, <russell.crowe.name>, and
<robert.deniro.name>.
Paragraph
15(a) of the ERDRP 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.”
In
view of Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations
pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a), and 15(a) of the ERDRP Rules and will draw
such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b)
of the ERDRP Rules.
Paragraph
4(b) of the ERDRP requires that Complainant prove each of the following
elements in order to establish that the Registered Name was registered in
violation of the Eligibility Requirements and obtain an order that a Registered
Name should be cancelled:
(1) the name corresponding to the Registered
Name is not the legal name of Respondent; and
(2) the name corresponding to the Registered
Name is not the name of a fictional character in which Respondent has trademark
or service mark rights; and
(3) Respondent has not been commonly known by
the name corresponding with the Registered Name.
If
the above elements are shown, and Complainant requests that the Registered Name
be transferred to Complainant, paragraph 5(f)(i)(B) of the ERDRP requires
Complainant to establish that Complainant meets the Eligibility Requirements
correspondent to the Registered Name.
In order to meet the Eligibility Requirements, Complainant must provide
evidence of one or more of the following:
(1) that the name corresponding to the
Registered Name is the legal name of Complainant; or
(2) that the name corresponding to the
Registered Name is the name of a fictional character in which Complainant has
trademark or service mark rights; or
(3) that Complainant has been commonly known
by the name corresponding to the Registered Name.
Respondent’s
legal name is Christian Vogel. No
evidence on record suggests that Respondent’s legal name is also Michael
Douglas. Therefore, Respondent’s
registration of <michael.douglas.name> and <michael@douglas.name>
does not meet this Eligibility Requirement and Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) has been
satisfied.
Name of Fictional Character
No
evidence on record suggests, and Respondent has not come forward with any
evidence that establishes, that Respondent owns any trademark or service mark
rights for a character by the name of “Michael Douglas.” Therefore, Respondent’s registration of <michael.douglas.name>
and <michael@douglas.name> does not meet the Eligibility
Requirement, and Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) has been satisfied.
Commonly Known As
Respondent
is commonly known as Christian Vogel.
No evidence suggests that Respondent is commonly known as or by Michael
Douglas and Respondent has produced no such evidence. Therefore, Respondent does not meet the Eligibility Requirement,
and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
provided verifiable evidence in the form of a passport that his legal name is
Michael Douglas. Complainant satisfied
the Eligibility Requirement and is therefore eligible to register <michael.douglas.name>
and <michael@douglas.name>.
It
has been demonstrated, as required by the ERDRP, that <michael.douglas.name>
and <michael@douglas.name> were registered in violation of the
Eligibility Requirements. Furthermore,
it has been established that Complainant has rights to the Registered Names
because his legal name is Michael Douglas.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby
GRANTED.
Hon. Carolyn
Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: January 14, 2003.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page.