The Smith Trust d/b/a Starstruck Entertainment, Inc. and Starstruck Management Group, LLC v. Screwface Records
Claim Number: FA1206001447898
Complainant is The Smith Trust d/b/a Starstruck Entertainment, Inc. and Starstruck Management Group, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Barbara L. Friedman of Cobalt, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is screwface records (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <starstruckmanagement.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC, and <starstruckmanagement.net>, registered with Tucows, Inc.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 8, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 8, 2012.
On June 11, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <starstruckmanagement.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 8, 2012 Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <starstruckmanagement.net> domain name is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 12, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@starstruckmanagement.com and postmaster@starstruckmanagement.net. Also on June 12, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 9, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's 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 domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Starstruck Entertainment, established in 1988, is a private company categorized under Personal Interest Organization in Tennessee, where it was incorporated in 1991. Starstruck is a music management company founded and operated by Reba McEntire and The Smith Trust, which is wholly owned by Reba McEntire. Reba McEntire is an internationally renowned entertainer with a successful career in music, motion pictures, television, merchandising, live appearances, and product endorsements. Starstruck was originally created to manage musical management, booking, publishing, promotion, publicity, accounting, ticket sales, and fan club administration of recording artists. The company currently manages the careers or aspects of the careers of other entertainers, including without limitation, Reba McEntire, Shelby Blackstock, Blake Shelton, and Kelly Clarkson. It also operates a state-of-the-art broadcasting and recording facility, Starstruck Studios, in Nashville, Tennessee.
Since its inception in 1988, Starstruck has made continuous, extensive, and prominent use of its STARSTRUCK name and mark in connection with varied entertainment services.
Starstruck, under The Smith Trust, is also the owner of a valid and subsisting United States trademark registration for its STARSTRUCK mark, specifically:
(i) Mark: STARSTRUCK
Registration
No.: 3611718
Registration
Date: April
28, 2009
Goods: Pre-recorded CDs and downloadable digital files featuring music.
Registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is sufficient to establish that Complainant has rights in the marks under the Policy. See Ameridream, Inc, v. Russell, FA 677782 (NAF 2006) (complainant’s registration of the AMERIDREAM mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(1)); see also Paisley Park Enters. V. Lawson, FA 384834 (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶4(a)(1) through registration of the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) (NAF 2005).
Starstruck owns and operates Starstruck Studios, the premiere recording space in Nashville. Starstruck Studios’ website is located at the URL www.starstruckstudios.com.
Starstruck’s activities and marks have reached a large national and international audience.
As a result of these efforts, the STARSTRUCK mark and the corresponding trade name have acquired substantial commercial value, and distinctiveness for Starstruck and the goods and services it provides.
The Domain Names Are Identical Or Confusingly Similar To A Trademark Or Service Mark In Which The Complainant Has Rights.
The domain names that are the subject of this Complaint, <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STARSTRUCK registered mark and to its trade names Starstruck Entertainment, Inc. and Starstruck Management Group, LLC. These domain names incorporate the entirety of Complainant’s mark, adding only the generic term “management.”
As previous panels have found, the addition of a generic word or common descriptive term to a mark in a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. In The Diller Corporation v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO D2008-0628, the addition of the generic term “stone” to the trademark FORMICA did not alter the fact that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark in question. See also, Gallup, Inc. v. ArmBeat, NAF FA0507000510425 (NAF 2005) (adding the generic phrases “media” and “mediagroup” to the GALLUP mark to form the domain names mediagallup.com and gallupmediagroup.com does not avoid a finding that the domain names are both substantively identical and confusingly similar to the GALLUP mark); Adidas-Soloman AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO 2006-0748 (adding the generic sports terms “football,” “skate,” and “soccer” to the ADIDAS mark to form the domain names adidasfootball.com, adidasskate.com, and adidassoccer.com did not diminish the similarity between the disputed domain names and the ADIDAS mark. In fact, “the addition of the generic sports words to the trademark ADIDAS will mislead Internet users to assume that the web sites are connected with the Complainant.. . . . “).
Here, the addition of the generic term “management” adds nothing to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s registered trademark--in fact, it only serves to increase the confusion since management services are a key component of the services offered by Complainant--and as a result, the domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interests In Respect Of The Domain Names.
The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain names. On information and belief, Respondent registered the <starstruckmanagement.com> domain name on February 24, 2007 and the <starstruckmanagement.net> domain name on or about March 2, 2008. This is approximately 18 and 19 years, respectively, after Starstruck began using the STARSTRUCK trademark and trade name.
Furthermore, Respondent is not commonly known by this name, nor to the best of Complainant’s knowledge does Respondent have any common-law trademark or service mark, or registered trademark or service mark, or trademark or service mark application anywhere in the world for the mark STARSTRUCK.
The WHOIS information identifies “Screwface Records” as the registrant of the disputed domain names, and to the best of Complainant’s knowledge this is the name under which Respondent legitimately did business until it realized it might be more successful if it simply passed itself off as Complainant instead. See Instron Corp v. Kaner, FA 768859 (NAF 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the “shoredurometer.com” domain name because the WHOIS information listed Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a/ Electromatic Equip’t as the registrant of the disputed domain names).
If to any extent Respondent’s use of the domain names has enabled it to become known by these names, such recognition could only be because Respondent is passing its sites off as Complainant’s. Passing off is not a legitimate right or interest.
Finally, Respondent is not affiliated with Starstruck, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s mark, nor any domain names incorporating this mark.
Under well-established principles of the UDRP, this all constitutes evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO 2000-0020 (respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name since it had not been licensed nor received permission to use any of Complainant’s trademarks or domain names incorporating those marks); Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien, WIPO D2000-0028 (respondent had no legitimate interests in the domain name since, among other things, he was not a licensee of complainant’s, complainant’s well-known trademark was in use for a substantial time prior to respondent’s registration of his domain name, and respondent was not commonly known by the domain name he registered).
Here, as in Compagnie and Cellular One, Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant’s, Complainant’s mark has been in use for many years prior to Respondent’s registration of the domain names, and Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain names it registered. Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in these domain names.
The Domain Names Were Registered And Are Being Used In Bad Faith.
Respondent registered the domain names <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> primarily for the purpose of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s sites by intentionally confusing Complainant’s clients and prospective clients as to whether or not Respondent was affiliated with Complainant or endorsed by Complainant. This constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Stephen S. Lalwani, WIPO D2000-014 and D2000-015 (registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith because the registrant used the name to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s marks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement). To imply a sponsorship or official relationship where no relationship exists is prohibited under United States law and is evidence of bad faith under the UDRP. See 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1).
By virtue of the similarity between the domain names and the Complainant’s trademark, Internet users are likely to believe that Respondent’s websites are authorized or endorsed by the trademark owner. Tata Sons Ltd. v. The Advanced Information Technology Association, WIPO D2000-0049.
The use of Complainant’s mark in Respondent’s domain names is deliberately designed to misdirect consumers away from Complainant. Respondent uses the domain names to forward to websites at which it purports to offer talent management services. These sites are designed to misdirect consumers away from the legitimate Starstruck Entertainment and Starstruck Management companies and mislead them into believing that <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> are, in fact, Complainant’s own websites. Respondent is attempting to usurp the goodwill and reputation that Starstruck has worked hard to build in its mark and this action creates a clear likelihood of confusion.
In fact, some degree of confusion has already occurred. The existence of these domain names was brought to Complainant’s attention when a video director for country music star Blake Shelton’s new music video used information from Respondent’s website under the mistaken assumption that it was Complainant’s own site.
The use of the disputed domain names to link to websites that contain content related to entertainment and talent management is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy, as previous panels have held in similar disputes. In Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corp. v. Domain Deluxe, the panel found respondent’s use of a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users interested in complainant’s products to a commercial website that offered and advertised products of complainant’s competitors was not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to the Policy. Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corp. v. Domain Deluxe (FA 0406000285145); see also Mission KwaSizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, WIPO 2000-0279 (respondent had no right to use the domain names since it was likely to confuse persons who would expect to access material from complainant, not respondent).
The use of Complainant’s mark in Respondent’s domain names is deliberately designed to misdirect Internet users away from Complainant, the legitimate trademark owner. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect to websites offering the disputed domain names to link to websites that purport to offer competing services. The offering of such directly competing services shows that Respondent knows that people within the music industry recognize Complainant’s name and mark as identifying Complainant and the high-quality services it provides, and is thereby designed to free-ride off the goodwill that Complainant has created in its name and mark. Such intentional infringement is compelling evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. See Diamond Heart and Training Institute, Inc. v. Malcolm McAuliffe, FA 1385352 (NAF 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <diamondheartawareness.com> domain name to offer services that directly compete with Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
C. Additional Submissions
Pursuant to a request for additional information by the Panel under ICANN Rule 12, Complainant explained the Starstruck trademark is owned by the Smith Trust (whose sole trustee is Reba McEntire Blackstock). In turn, the Smith Trust licensed use of the Startrademark to Starstruck Entertainment, Inc. (a Tennessee corporation) and Starstruck Management Group, LLC (a Tennessee limited liability company) which manages the careers of several singers.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
Paragraph 15(a) of 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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order transferring or cancelling a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are three Complainants in this proceeding. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
The registered trademark is owned by the Smith Trust (whose sole trustee is Reba McEntire Blackstock). In turn, the Smith Trust licensed use of the trademark to Starstruck Entertainment, Inc. (a Tennessee corporation) and Starstruck Management Group, LLC (a Tennessee limited liability company) which manages the careers of several singers.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It is permissible for more than one complainant to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the entities, such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or other affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. That is the circumstance here because all of the Complainants are parties to license agreements for the trademark in question.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Investments, Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in American Family Health Services Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
The evidence is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants and the Panel will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding.
Complainant contends it has rights in the STARTSTRUCK mark, which Complainant uses in connection with a variety of entertainment services, including music management. Complainant provided the Panel with evidence of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) trademark registration Complainant owns for the STARSTRUCK mark (Reg. No. 3,611,718 filed September 5, 2008; registered April 28, 2009). Panels have found the registration of a mark is sufficient evidence of rights in that mark. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations). When a mark is registered with the USPTO, the relevant date for acquisition of rights in the mark is the date of first use in the trademark application (1999 in this case) Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the STARSTRUCK mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i), dating back to 1999.
Complainant claims the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names are confusingly similar to the STARSTRUCK mark. Complainant contends Respondent simply added the descriptive term “management” and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), either “.com” or “.net,” to Complainant’s mark to create the disputed domain names. In fact, one of Complainant’s names includes the entire domain name. The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD do not bar the Panel from finding the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names are confusingly similar to the STARSTRUCK mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent is not commonly known by the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been licensed or permitted to use the STARSTRUCK mark. Additionally, the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names list “Screwface Records” as the domain name registrant. Previously, panels have held that the WHOIS record and other available information is considered strong evidence of whether or not a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant claims the disputed domain names resolve to websites that purport to offer competing talent management services. Panels have found the marketing of competing services does not give a respondent rights or legitimate interests. See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests is evidenced by its attempt to pass off the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names as being operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant. The <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names’ resolving websites prominently use Complainant’s mark, along with the descriptor “Management,” and advertise competing talent management services. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names are used for neither a Policy ¶4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant contends Respondent’s <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names are used to attract Internet users by creating confusion about their affiliation with Complainant so Respondent may take commercial advantage of Internet users’ mistakes. Complainant claims the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names are confusingly similar to the STARSTRUCK mark and resolve to websites purporting to offer talent management services. Complainant argues persuasively Respondent commercially benefits from this use. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith as it attempted to take commercial advantage of Internet users’ mistakes pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).
Complainant claims Respondent has attempted to pass the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names off as being operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant. The <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names resolve to websites offering talent management services. The Panel finds the screenshots Complainant provides of the domain names’ resolving websites show prominent use of the STARSTRUCK mark, including the heading “ST⋆RSTRUCK MANAGEMENT” and the advertisement of talent management services. Panels have found that a respondent’s attempt to pass off the disputed domain name as being the complainant’s website is an indicator of bad faith. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s use of the title “Dodgeviper.com Official Home Page” gave consumers the impression that the complainant endorsed and sponsored the respondent’s website). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and is using the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <starstruckmanagement.com> and <starstruckmanagement.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, July 23, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page