954 Lexington Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10021
Law Street, Inc aka Wall Street, Inc.
379 Thornall Street
Edison, N.J. 08837
The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on April 1, 2000 on the Complaint of Sandy Frank Entertainment, Inc, the Complainant, represented by Ira S. Epstein, Esq., 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 against Law Street, Inc. aka Wall Street, Inc, the Respondent, represented by Ralph Zita, 379 Thornall Street, Fourth Floor, Edison, N.J. 08837 having filed a response to the Complaint.
Domain Name: YOUR ASKED FOR IT.COM
Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.
Domain Name Registrant: LAW STREET, INC. aka WALL STREET, INC.
Date Complaint Filed: February 7, 2000
Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding: February 25, 2000
Due date for a Response: March 20, 2000
Response to Complaint was submitted on March 23, 2000. Panelist will allow response although filed beyond due date in the exercise of administrative discretion
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Complainant to secure relief must prove that the three elements set forth in Paragraph 4a of the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy are present. These are: 1. The domain name 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 interest in respect to the domain name. 3.The Complainant has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. .
The first element is clearly present since the domain name is identical to the trade or service mark owned by the complainant. The second element is arguably present since the Respondent makes merely a naked allegation that the website is being developed without showing a use, or the existence of demonstrable preparations to use the site.
The Complainant , however, has failed to produce any proof as to the third element that the Respondent registered or is using the domain name in bad faith. There is no claim that the Respondent is unfairly dealing in domain names or registering domain names to prevent the owners of trade or service marks from using them as a domain names. There is no evidence that the Respondent is confusing the name of the domain site to the detriment of the Complainant or that the Complainants service mark "You Asked For It" for a television series is diminished or tarnished by the proposed use of the phrase for a legal question and answer service. This third element of bad faith must be established before relief can be granted.
Based upon the above findings and conclusions it is decided as follows:
THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT RELIEF BE DENIED TO THE COMPLAINANT.
Dated: April 1, 2000, Judge Gilbert T. Cave (Ret.), Arbitrator
Gilbert T. Cave