DECISION

 

Julie Chen Moonves v. Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA2601002200261

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Julie Chen Moonves ("Complainant"), represented by Victor K. Sapphire of Law Office of Victor Sapphire, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <juliechen.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026.

 

On January 20, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <juliechen.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 January 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2026 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@juliechen.com. Also on January 26, 2026, 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 February 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant an American television personality, news anchor, host, producer and author who is professionally known as Julie Chen.  Complainant has been the recipient of 1 award and 5 nominations for Daytime Emmy awards based on her work as host of The Talk. Complainant has also been the anchor of shows such as CBS Morning News and CBS This Morning. Complainant was also the author of two published books in 2018 and 2023. Complainant claims common law rights in the JULIE CHEN mark based on Complainant's longtime use (since the 1990s) of the JULIE CHEN mark in connection with entertainment services such as public speaking, television news and entertainment programing, and as an author. The <juliechen.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's JULIE CHEN mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant's mark, merely adding in the ".com" generic top-level domain (gTLD) to form a domain name.

 

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <juliechen.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving website ("Respondent's Website") displays pay-per-click links.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <juliechen.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent's use of the Domain Name diverts users to the Respondent's Website that features pay-per-click advertisements. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JULIE CHEN mark given Complainant's considerable level of fame.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant having failed to establish bad faith registration of the domain name <juliechen.com> has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied.

 

DISCUSSION

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 3.1 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").

 

The issue of making unsubstantiated allegations is particularly relevant in the present proceeding.   The Complaint contains numerous statements with little or no documentary evidence in support; evidence that would entirely be within the power of the Complainant to provide. Specifically:

 

1) The Complaint provides little or no documentary evidence (as opposed to assertions or submissions) of reputation held by the Complainant in the JULIE CHEN mark when the Domain Name was registered in March 2010. The Complaint contains statements that the Complainant had exposure to "several millions of consumers" as of March 2010. The entirety of the documentary evidence of the Complainant's reputation consist of what appear to be (but are not stated) extracts from the website www.imdb.com indicating that the Complainant has a single credit as a producer from 2020; has won or been nominated for several Emmy awards between 2014 and 2019 and has 10 guest star credits on tv shows, of which 2 were prior to 2010. No evidence of the Complainant's work as a TV anchor or host prior to 2014 is provided, nor does the Complaint contain any documentary evidence of her fame or third party reputation in 2010.

2)  The Complaint contains no documentary evidence of any use of the JULIE CHEN mark as an author or in respect of charitable causes;

3)  Notwithstanding the various assertions in the Complaint about the Respondent's use of the Domain Name for a pay-per-click website; the Complaint contains no documentary evidence in support of this claim.  The Panel has visited the Domain Name and it is presently inactive.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of whether the Complainant has established common law trade mark rights in the JULIE CHEN mark though notes that the Domain Name is identical to the JULIE CHEN mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of rights or legitimate interests.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) ("Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith."); see also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum Jul. 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).

 

The Domain Name consists of a common first name and a common surname (being "julie" and "chen") that taken together form an entirely ordinary name that would undoubtedly be used by numerous individuals. It is entirely plausible that an enterprising domain name trader (or an individual known as Julie Chen) may wish to register a domain name comprising of two such common names.  

 

While there is essentially no documentary evidence before the Panel supporting the Complainant's claims to fame in 2010, the Panel, noting that in the absence of a response it is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint, is prepared to accept that as of 2010 the Complainant, as a news anchor on a significant national news show such as CBS Morning News, had a considerable degree of fame, at least in the United States. However, the Complaint falls well short of establishing that in 2010 the JULIE CHEN mark was so well-known and ubiquitous that the Panel can conclude, for that reason alone, that the Respondent's registration of a domain name consisting of the words "julie" and "chen" was motivated by awareness of Complainant (which would generally amount to bad faith registration), as opposed to acquisition of the Domain Name for its inherent meaning being a common first name and common surname. This is particularly the case where the Domain Name is registered to a proxy, and hence the nationality of the individual involved in the registration of the Domain Name is unclear. Nor does Complainant provide any evidence relating to the identity of Respondent, such as past dealings with Complainant, or connection with Complainant's businesses, such that it would be otherwise reasonable to infer Respondent was aware of Complainant at the time of registration.

 

Therefore, in order to determine if Respondent's registration of the Domain Name was motivated by awareness of Complainant or the inherent qualities of the words comprising the Domain Name, it is necessary to consider evidence of Respondent's use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name is presently inactive and the Complaint provides no documentary evidence supporting its claims of past use. Equally there is no evidence that the Domain Name has been offered for sale and no other evidence that would enable the Panel to infer that the Respondent has ever used the Domain Name to take advantage of any reputation held by Complainant in the JULIE CHEN mark.

 

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum October 9, 2014) ("The objectives of the Policy are limited -- designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting -- and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable. "). In the present case Respondent has registered a domain name consisting of the common personal names "Julie Chen" that happen to correspond to a well-known individual. Absent any evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant or otherwise has engaged in bad faith conduct, those facts are not sufficient to establish registration in bad faith under the Policy.

 

Having failed to establish that the domain name was registered in bad faith, Complainant cannot satisfy the bad faith prong of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as the Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use.  See Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum Jun. 19, 2017) ("Whatever the merits of Complainant's arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail.").

 

As reasoned above, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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 <juliechen.com> Domain Name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 19, 2026