Cameron Dallas v. Team Supreme
Claim Number: FA1808001801458
Complainant is Cameron Dallas (“Complainant”), represented by Ted Nguyen of Harder LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Team Supreme (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <camerondallas.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 15, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 15, 2018.
On August 16, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <camerondallas.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 August 21, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2018 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@camerondallas.com. Also on August 21, 2018, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 12, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant rose to prominence through videos he shared on Vine, a short form video hosting service and application. He is now known primarily for his videos on his YouTube channel “Cameron Dallas.” Complainant has common law rights in the CAMERON DALLAS mark. Complainant, on the YouTube platform, has 5,778,065 subscribers and 264,476,506 total views, has amassed 21.2 million followers on Complainant’s Instagram account, and has starred in several movies. See Compl. Exs. D-F. Complainant began using the CAMERON DALLAS mark in commerce in 2012, and has since applied for trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) along with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”). See Compl. Exs. B-C. Respondent’s <camerondallas.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <camerondallas.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent fails to use the domain name for any purpose besides displaying the message “NEW FAN SITE FOR CAMERON DALLAS IN THE WORKS.” See Compl. Exs. I & J.
Respondent registered and uses the <camerondallas.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent clearly registered the domain name with the intention to sell the domain name to capitalize on the fame associated with the CAMERON DALLAS mark. Further, Respondent has not used the domain name for any purpose, as the resolving webpage has merely displayed the message “NEW FAN SITE FOR CAMERON DALLAS IN THE WORKS.” See Compl. Exs. I & J. Finally, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CAMERON DALLAS mark as shown by Respondent’s registration of the mark in its entirety, which is Complainant’s personal name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <camerondallas.com> domain name on January 25, 2012.
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to carry its burden regarding the first element of this complaint in that it has failed to allege or prove that it had common law rights in or to the mark CAMERON DALLAS prior to January 25, 2012, the registration date of the disputed domain name.
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 that 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 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(f), 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 (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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to carry its burden regarding this first, requisite element of this dispute. Complainant has no demonstrable trademark rights in or to CAMERON DALLAS that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s trademark registration applications with both the USPTO and WIPO come years after Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on January 25, 2012 and, therefore, are irrelevant to this dispute.
To establish priority in the mark, Complainant must show it had secondary meaning in the mark prior to the disputed domain name’s registration date. Secondary meaning could be shown by actual examples of use of the mark, advertising of the mark, unsolicited media attention in the mark, or general popularity of the mark among the consuming public. Complainant fills the record with many very interesting examples of its use of the mark but every one of them postdates the registration of the disputed domain name. It is clear that Complainant has extensively used the mark and that, today, it has secondary meaning; however, to carry its burden here, it must establish through clear evidence that it had secondary meaning prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant apparently cannot satisfy that basic element.
Complainant does not even allege that it had prior use sufficient to establish secondary meaning and Complainant, most certainly, does not provide any evidence establishing such prior use.
Complainant does allege that the disputed domain name was registered to extort money from Complainant. However, once again, Complainant fails to provide any evidence by which this conclusion might be reached.
As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to carry its burden regarding secondary meaning in the mark that predates Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds in favor of Respondent and shall forgo any analysis of the remaining factors in this UDRP dispute.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <camerondallas.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page