Independent Women’s Forum v. Kevin Grandia / Spake Media House
Claim Number: FA2006001901788
Complainant is Independent Women’s Forum (“Complainant”), represented by Meaghan H. Kent of Venable LLP, United States. Respondent is Kevin Grandia / Spake Media House (“Respondent”), represented by Electronic Frontier Foundation, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <independentwomensforum.org> and <independentwomensvoice.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 25, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 25, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <independentwomensforum.org> and <independentwomensvoice.org> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 30, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of July 24, 2020 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@independentwomensforum.org, postmaster@independentwomensvoice.org. Also on June 30, 2020, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 24, 2020.
On July 28, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.
On July 29, 2020 Complainant filed an Additional Submission, which the Panel in its discretion elected to consider.
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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Multiple Domain Names and Respondents
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at par. 4.11.2 states “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names are subject to common control, . . . .” UDRP Panels have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether multiple domains are, in fact, registered by the same holder. Such factors as similar website content and similarities in the Whois information, etc. may lead to the conclusion that domains with differing Whois information are, nevertheless, owned by a single entity.
Complainant argues that consolidation of both Domain Names is appropriate here because circumstances indicate that common control is exercised over both Domain Names and the web site to which they resolve. Respondent admits that both names are registered to the same entity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that both Domain Names are registered to the same person or entity and will proceed as to both.
A. Complainant
Complainant is an educational 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to developing and promoting public policy and political issues affecting women. It has rights in the INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM and INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE marks based its registration of those marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM - Reg. No. 4,706,692, registered March 24, 2015, and INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE - Reg. No. 4,714,819, registered April 7, 2015). Respondent’s <independentwomensforum.org> and <independentwomensvoice.org> Domain Names are identical to Complainant’s marks as they incorporate those marks in their entirety, merely adding the ".org" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD").
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks, and Respondent has not been commonly known by Domain Names. The web site resolving from the Domain Names offers criticism of Complainant’s web sites, but Respondent cannot acquire rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as they are identical to Complainant’s marks. The existence of a disclaimer on the resolving web site does not confer legitimacy or fair use upon Respondent.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. It registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Respondent's use of disclaimers on the resolving web site does not save it from a finding of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent is a digital marketing firm and registered the Domain Names on behalf of Lisa Graves and True North Research, who are the beneficial holders of the Domain Names.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names to provide information and analysis concerning Complainant, including information about its leadership, donors, and political activity. The title, content, design, and disclaimer of Respondent's web sites make it immediately apparent that the website is critical of and not affiliated with Complainant, and that it is noncommercial in nature. Lisa Graves and True North Research, the beneficial holders of the Domain Names, are domiciled in the United States and are thus entitled to a finding of rights or legitimate interests based upon their rights under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, notwithstanding that the Domain Names are identical to Complaint’s marks.
As its web site is not commercial in nature, Respondent is not a competitor of Complainant for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Its primary purpose in registering and using the Domain Names was not to disrupt Complainant’s business but to educate the public about Complainant.
C. Complainant Additional Submissions
The Policy does not recognize “beneficial interests” in a domain name. The named Respondent is the proper party and it is domiciled in Canada, not the U.S. The majority view among UDRP panels supports Complainant’s argument that using a domain name identical to a complainants’ mark does not qualify as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use even when the domain name is used in connection with genuine noncommercial free speech. Further, UDRP panels have found that noncommercial competition is sufficient to prove bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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; and
(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.
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM mark was registered to Complainant (Reg. No. 4,706,692) on March 24, 2015, and the INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE mark was registered to Complainant (Reg. No. 4,714,819) on April 7, 2015 (Complaint Annex F). Complainant’s registration of these marks with the USPTO is sufficient to establish its rights in those marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <independentwomensforum.org> and <independentwomensvoice.org> Domain Names are identical to Complainant’s marks as they consist entirely of those marks, merely omitting spaces between the words and adding the ".org" gTLD. These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s marks are clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical to the INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM and INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE marks, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because (i) Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark, (ii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names, and (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because, although Respondent is using them in the exercise of free speech to criticize Complainant’s web sites, the Domain Names are identical to Complainant’s marks and this precludes Respondent from acquiring rights or legitimate interests in the names. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated or associated with it and that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
The WHOIS information furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists the registrant of the Domain Name as “Kevin Grandia / Spake Media House.” Neither of these names bears any resemblance to either Domain Name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1 407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The web site resolving from both Domain Names is clearly noncommercial in nature, and consists exclusively of critical comment on Complainant’s web sites (Complaint Annex B). Complainant acknowledges Respondent’s right to express criticism of the content and opinions on Complainant’s web sites but argues that it should not be able to use the Domain Names, which are identical to Complainant’s marks, to do so. The Domain Names are essentially identical to Complainant’s marks, and there is consensus among many UDRP panels that this single factor precludes Respondent from having rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Complainant has made its prima facie case, and it is incumbent upon Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. To this end, Respondent argues that in the interests of free speech, a domain name used in connection with bona fide noncommercial criticism may support a finding of rights or legitimate interests, even if it is identical to the trademark of the complainant, especially when both parties are domiciled in the U.S. Respondent also emphasizes that it is obvious immediately upon arriving at its site that the site is not sponsored or operated by Complainant.
The Domain Names involved in this proceeding are identical for the purposes of this proceeding. The omission of spaces between words and the addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in a UDRP case. Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, Ibid. Determination of rights or legitimate interests thus depends upon of whether a respondent may acquire rights or legitimate interests in a domain name which is identical to the complainant’s mark. The Panel genuinely appreciates the careful, professional and competent presentations submitted by both parties and has carefully considered all of their submittals. In the last analysis, however, Complainant has the better argument here. By registering and using Domain Names that consist entirely of Complainant’s mark, Respondent represents that it is the Complainant and seeks to lure Internet traffic to its web site by this false pretense. This is neither legitimate nor fair. On the contrary, it evidences an intent misleadingly to divert consumers and thus cannot fit within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel appreciates the argument advanced by respondent and other UDRP panels that the interests of free speech should permit a respondent to register and use a domain name identical to the mark of the complainant. c.f. Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, D2001-0505 (WIPO July 6, 2001) (“That some internet users might initially be confused into thinking that, because of the use of the mark in the Domain Name, <britanniabuildingsociety.org> [the domain name at issue in this case] is Complainant’s official web site is of no moment. First, any such confusion would immediately be dispelled by Respondent’s prominent disclaimer and the link that is displayed to Complainant’s official site. Second, and in any event, such a low level of confusion is a price worth paying to preserve the free exchange of ideas via the internet.”). These arguments are seductive, but they do not answer the concerns about initial interest confusion, and the fundamental deceptiveness and trickery inherent in a domain name which is identical to the mark of another. The view among a majority of WIPO UDRP panels supports Complainant’s position. WIPO Overview 3.0 at ¶ 2.6.2. More importantly, however, the use of a domain name literally identical to a complainant’s mark falsely implies association, affiliation, or sponsorship; it is fundamentally dishonest. It is not legitimate, it is not fair.
Neither the obviously critical content on the resolving web site nor the presence of a disclaimer there can adequately address these concerns, as they both arise before the internet user arrives at that site. Joseph Delo Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumi, Case No. 2006-1627 (WIPO April 27, 2007) (“As to a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark, a majority of the Panel believes that the initial interest confusion approach more accurately accords with the language and purpose of the Policy, both of which are directed against misleading Internet users as to ownership and sponsorship of a website maintained at the domain name at issue. Respondent’s selection of Complainant’s name for her criticism site allows her to make use of Complainant’s service mark – in a manner that would lead an ordinary Internet user initially to believe that Respondent was Complainant or that Respondent had Complainant’s permission to distribute her message. Such use is not legitimate under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and the safe harbor of paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not available because Respondent undeniably intended “to misleadingly divert consumers.” This diversion was obviously intended when Respondent registered both disputed domain names, which is enough to establish registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii). Because <dellorusso.info> is identical to Complainant’s mark and is thus not itself expressive, Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in it.”), McGuireWoods LLP v. Bobby Jones / UTILITY BELLHOPS, FA 1871096 (Forum Dec. 11, 2019) ("The Panel finds that Respondent does not have the right to impersonate Complainant by wholly incorporating Complainant’s trademark in a disputed domain name without the inclusion other indicia (such as a derogatory term) to make it clear that the domain name is unconnected to Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making 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)").
Respondent argues that as both parties are domiciled in the U.S., it should be entitled to the protections afforded free speech by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As pointed out by Complainant, however, the Respondent here is a digital marketing firm domiciled in Canada. Respondent argues that it registered the Domain Names on behalf of Lisa Graves and True North Research, who are the beneficial holders of the Domain Names, and who are domiciled in the U.S., but Rule 1 defines the Respondent as “the holder of a domain registration against which a complaint is initiated.” There is no authority for the concept of a “beneficial interest” in a domain registration. The Panel finds that the named Respondent is the real party in interest in this proceeding, and that these parties are not subject to the provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
On the evidence presented, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent‘s web site or location.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s conduct fits within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). There is no evidence, however, that Respondent is actually a competitor of Complainant. A number of UDRP panels have found that using a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt the business of a complainant was bad faith for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), even when the respondent was not a competitor. Others have essentially by-passed the competition factor, focusing instead on disruption, and have simply found bad faith under ¶ 4(b)(iii), without further discussion or analysis.[i]
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) reads as follows: “you [the respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor” (emphasis supplied). The concept of “competition” in the context of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) has been subject to various interpretations by UDRP panels. Some have interpreted that term broadly to mean someone who “acts in opposition to the complainant.” Mission KwaSizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, Case No. 2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000). Others have limited the term to parties who vie commercially with each other in the same industry, offering the same or similar goods or services. Tribeca Film Center Inc. v. Lorenzo Brusasco-Mackenzie, Case No. 2000-1772 (WIPO April 10, 2000). This Panel favors the second view, concurring with the panel in Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, Ibid., that to accept the interpretation first above described would “render so many parties ‘competitors’ as to dilute the Policy’s bad faith requirement beyond recognition.” Clearly, Respondent here is not vying with Complainant for customers or business in any commercial sense whatever. It is luring Internet traffic to its web site by impersonating Complainant but it is not competing with it. In the absence of actual commercial competition between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent here cannot be considered a competitor for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Even if Complainant and Respondent were deemed competitors for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), there is no evidence that Respondent registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. On the contrary, Respondent stated that its primary purpose in registering the Domain Names was to attract Internet users to its web site and thereby expand the audience for its own views. These parties may be adversaries in the political sense, but neither is a commercial enterprise; neither can be considered a business for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the circumstances stated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
That said, using Domain Names identical to Complainant’s mark, falsely implying association, affiliation or sponsorship, to attract Internet traffic to Respondent’s web site, is still bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005), Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are merely illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using identical domain names falsely to imply affiliation, association or sponsorship is sufficient evidence of bad faith to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Joseph Delo Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumi, Ibid. (“Respondent undeniably intended “to misleadingly divert consumers.” This diversion was obviously intended when Respondent registered both disputed domain names, which is enough to establish registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the Domain Names in January 2019 (Complaint Annex A shows the creation date of both names). The Domain Names are identical to Complainant’s mark, and the content on its web site is expressly and specifically directed at Complainant, addressing and contesting specific points of view expressed on Complainant’s web sites. Again considering the nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in the incorporated mark has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
For the reasons first set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <independentwomensforum.org> and <independentwomensvoice.org> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
August 6, 2020
[i] PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)), Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog / Love City Brewing Company, FA 1753144 (Forum Nov. 27, 2017) (Finding that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by pointing Internet users to an expired webpage. This may create the perception that Complainant is closed, never existed, or is not a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page