юридическая фирма 'Интернет и Право'
Основные ссылки










Яндекс цитирования

Рассылка 'BugTraq: Закон есть закон'





Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС

Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Donald J. Trump v. Sandra Long Consulting

Case No. D2007-1226

1. The Parties

Complainant is Donald J. Trump, New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Sughrue Mion, PLLC, United States of America.

Respondent is Sandra Long Consulting, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <trumplogos.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2007. On August 23, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Go Daddy Software a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On August 23, 2007, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 27, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 16, 2007. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 18, 2007.

The Center appointed Sandra A. Sellers as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant Donald J. Trump (Trump) is CEO of the Trump Organization and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. Complainant and his businesses own and operate many real estate holdings, including hotels and casinos. Trump also is the host of the television show “The Apprentice.”

Trump is the owner of the TRUMP name and associated marks for various goods and services offered under his name. Since at least as early as 1985, Trump has used his TRUMP mark for casino services, and since at least the early 1990s for hotel and entertainment services. Trump also uses the TRUMP mark in connection with real estate services, golf club services, model management services, education services, travel services, financial services, beauty pageants, and other goods and services.

Trump also holds other domain names including <trump.com>, <trumpuniversity.com>, <trumptaj.com>, <trumpcasinos.com>, <trumpplaza.com> and <trumpmarine.com>.

Trump has spent millions of dollars promoting and advertising the TRUMP marks.

Previous panels in UDRP proceedings have found the TRUMP marks to be famous and distinctive.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 1, 2006, which expires on April 1, 2008.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, with simply the insertion of the generic term “logos.” Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant also alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to intentionally trade on the fame and reputation of Complainant’s mark, and that Respondent is deliberately using Complainant’s famous mark to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain, with “click through” revenue.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Pursuant to paragraphs 4(a)(i) to (iii) of the Policy, for Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name transferred to it, Complainant must show that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant clearly has rights in the TRUMP mark, based on its long and extensive use and ownership of numerous trademark registrations worldwide, as well as several domain names. “Through Complainant’s longstanding use of the TRUMP mark in domain names and web addresses the public has come to expect that domain names incorporating the mark be the Complainant,” Donald J. Trump and Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts v. Benji Rafaeli dba Benji, NAF Claim No. FA0110000100238.

The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s TRUMP mark and the generic word “logos.” It is well established that the inclusion of a generic term does not defeat the similarity created by use of Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Nokia Corp. v. Nokiagirls.com aka IBCC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102 (appending the generic term “girls” to the NOKIA trademark was a “rather neutral addition” that would not distinguish the domain name from the trademark).

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark, and that Complainant meets the first criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the TRUMP mark. On the evidence before the Panel, Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted this.

Based on the foregoing and considering Respondent’s use of the domain name explained further below under paragraph 6.C., the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that Complainant meets the second criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The fame and reputation of a Complainant’s mark is persuasive in determining a Respondent’s bad faith intent. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

Based on these facts, this Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574, in which the panel found it “inevitable that Respondent registered the domain names in full knowledge of Complainant’s rights and interests”.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that provides search results and links to real estate, travel, investment and other websites. Some of these links are to sites that may be associated with Complainant, and some directly compete with Complainant and his goods and services. Respondent clearly appears to be trading on Complainant’s fame and good will to attract Internet users to Respondent’s site.

It is likely that Respondent receives “click-through” revenue by directing those visitors to the other websites. UDRP panels have consistently found that, under similar circumstances, receiving click-through revenue by directing visitors to other websites constitutes bad faith. See Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com aka IBCC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102. This Panel finds that Respondent has in all likelihood used the disputed domain name intentionally to attract Internet users for commercial gain and with the intent to misleadingly divert consumers to other websites.

This Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and that Complainant meets the third criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <trumplogos.com> be transferred to Complainant.


Sandra A. Sellers
Sole Panelist

Dated: October 22, 2007

 

Источник информации: https://internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2007/d2007-1226.html

 

На эту страницу сайта можно сделать ссылку:

 


 

На правах рекламы:

Произвольная ссылка:





Уважаемый посетитель!

Вы, кажется, используете блокировщик рекламы.

Пожалуйста, отключите его для корректной работы сайта.