Renegade44 Management, LLC v. robin bayless
Claim Number: FA2308002056188
Complainant is Renegade44 Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is robin bayless (“Respondent”), Oklahoma, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <michelleobama.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 4, 2023. Forum received payment on August 4, 2023.
On August 8, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <michelleobama.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 9, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 29, 2023 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@michelleobama.com. Also on August 9, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 30, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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, Renegade44 Management, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company founded by former United States President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama has had common law rights to the mark MICHELLE OBAMA since at least 2008, through extensive public promotion and use in U.S. commerce in connection with advertising and providing a wide range of services and activities, including authoring and promoting a best-selling book (The New York Times Best Seller American Grown, published in 2012); traveling throughout the United States giving speeches; and participating in various fundraisers and events. Mrs. Obama has licensed use of the MICHELLE OBAMA mark, which is famous, to Complainant.
The <michelleobama.com> domain name is identical to the MICHELLE OBAMA mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information in connection with the domain name makes no mention of the MICHELLE OBAMA mark as Respondent’s name or nickname. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use the MICHELLE OBAMA mark and is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, Respondent is attempting to sell the domain name for $30,000, an amount that greatly exceeds the out-of-pocket registration costs of the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name in anticipation that Mrs. Obama would continue to use and expand her rights in the MICHELLE OBAMA mark. Respondent’s attempt to sell the domain name for such an exorbitant price demonstrates that Respondent is aware of the fame of the MICHELLE OBAMA mark and is attempting to capitalize and profit in bad faith off that famous mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has shown that, as licensee from Mrs. Obama, it has common law rights in the MICHELLE OBAMA mark. The Panel finds Respondent’s <michelleobama.com> domain name to be identical to the MICHELLE OBAMA mark, differing only by the absence of a space between the words and the addition of the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or 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) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <michelleobama.com> domain name was initially registered on January 1, 2005. Following its expiry, it was purchased by Respondent at a GoDaddy auction on February 23, 2014 for US$3,550, many years after Complainant has shown that the MICHELLE OBAMA mark had become famous. It is offered for sale on a GoDaddy website for a price of US$30,000 plus a registration fee of US$21.99 per year.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <michelleobama.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of the famous MICHELLE OBAMA mark when Respondent registered the <michelleobama.com> domain name and that, although Respondent’s offer for sale is not explicitly directed at Mrs. Obama, Complainant or a competitor of Complainant, Respondent is clearly seeking to capitalize and profit in bad faith off that famous mark.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
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 <michelleobama.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: September 1, 2023.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page