5 stars based on
The Registrar also confirmed that its 5. Amongst other things, that agreement provides that the Respondent as registrant of the domain name agrees to be bound by the domain name dispute policy incorporated therein. The policy incorporated into the agreement is the Uniform Policy. Christie to so act. The case before this Administrative Panel was conducted in the English language. Copies of these interim orders are attached to this decision.
The Complainant is a world famous musician, recording and performing artist who has, for over twenty years, rendered high-quality musical services under his name, trademark and service mark STING.
Since at least as early asthe Complainant has exclusively and continuously used the STING mark in connection with approximately twenty record albums, almost all of which have gone multi-platinum in the United States and enjoyed great commercial success worldwide.
The Complainant has also used the STING mark in connection with innumerable world-wide concert tours involving venues with significant capacities, the majority of which sell out.
The name STING has become synonymous in the minds of the public with the Complainant and his activities in the domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc industry, and serves as a symbol of the goodwill and excellent reputation associated with Sting.
The STING mark is famous and entitled to the widest scope of protection afforded by law, including protection against dilution. The Respondent is not a competitor of the Complainant and the Respondent does not attempt to cause any confusion with him. Until the Respondent was contacted by a representative of the Complainant, the Respondent made no use of the domain name.
After being contacted by a representative of the Complainant, Respondent linked the domain name to another site called "GunBroker. Com", which is a site that facilitates "person to person" selling of guns. The Respondent registered the domain name in Julyapproximately 5 years before this dispute was commenced. The Respondent did not register the domain name to sell it, nor did he register the domain to hold it hostage for any reason. The Respondent engaged in work on web site to which he intended the domain name "sting.
The Respondent did not point the domain name "sting. Secondly, the Respondent has used the domain name mark to link to the "GunBrokers. In addition, that site is personally offensive to the Complainant and contrary to his established reputation, and tarnishes the STING mark in violation of 15 U.
In particular, the Respondent contends that the domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc STING has been the subject of 20 registrations in the United States, none of which have been granted to the Complainant.
Rather, the Respondent contends that it was the Complainant, through his attorney, who contacted him in relation to the domain name.
It is, however, clear that the Uniform Policy is not limited to a "registered" mark; an unregistered, or common law, mark is sufficient for the purposes of paragraph 4 a i.
However, the Uniform Policy is not limited to trademarks or service marks "owned" by the Complainant; it is domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc for the purposes of paragraph 4 a i that there be a trademark or service mark "in which domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc Complainant has rights". The Complainant asserted, and this Administrative Panel through the equivalent of taking judicial notice finds, that the Complainant is a world famous entertainer who is known by the name STING.
The answer to this question is not straightforward. The preponderance of views, however, was in favor of restricting the scope of the procedure, at least initially, in order to deal first with the most offensive forms of predatory practices and to establish the procedure on a sound footing. Two limitations on the scope of the procedure were, as indicated above, favored by these commentators. The first limitation would confine the availability of the procedure to cases of deliberate, bad faith abusive registrations.
The definition of such abusive registrations is discussed in the next section. The second limitation would define abusive registration by reference only to trademarks and service marks. Thus, registrations that violate trade names, geographical indications or personality rights would not be considered to fall domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc the definition of abusive registration for the purposes of the administrative procedure.
Those in favor of this form of limitation pointed out that the violation of trademarks and service marks was the most common form of abuse and that the law with respect to trade names, geographical indications and personality rights is less evenly harmonized throughout the world, although international norms do exist requiring the protection of trade names and geographical indications.
We are persuaded by the wisdom of proceeding firmly but cautiously and of tackling, at the first stage, problems which all agree require a solution. After experience has been gained with the operation of the administrative procedure and time has allowed for an assessment of its efficacy and of the problems, if any, which remain outstanding, domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc question of extending the notion of abusive registration to other intellectual property rights can always be re-visited.
It is clear from this statement that personality rights were not intended to be made subject to the proposed dispute resolution procedure. It must be concluded, therefore, that ICANN did not intend the procedure to apply to personality rights. OE stingan; akin to ON stinga to sting and prob.
However, it is not necessary to domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc a formal decision on this issue, because this Administrative Panel finds against the Complainant on other grounds, namely that the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii is not met, as discussed below.
In particular, the Respondent provided in Exhibit C of the Response copies of various email communications to him prior to the commencement of this dispute, domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc that the "UserName", the "nickname", the "Screen Name", or the "Account PIC" under which the Respondent had registered for global internet gaming services consisted of or included the word "sting". In Exhibit D to the Response, the Respondent provided copies of web page printouts from The Champions League of Quake, a service which monitors Quake servers and keeps track of the scores of registered players of this game.
In addition, the Respondent provided evidence in Exhibit E to the Response of preparations by him to establish a web site at the URL http: The word is undistinctive, and most likely is used by numerous people in cyberspace.
In practice, this word provides the Respondent with anonymity rather than with a name by which he is commonly known.
On balance, therefore, this Administrative Panel finds that the Respondent does not have a right to or a legitimate interest in the domain name, in the sense in which that concept is used in paragraph 4 a ii of the Uniform Policy.
The Respondent admitted that he offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant, but only after the Complainant solicited that offer. Again, the Complainant provided no evidence in support of this contention. In particular, the Complainant provided no domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc as to the contents of the "GunBroker. The Respondent admitted that the domain name did point to the "GunBroker.
Once again, the Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof on this point. In the Telstra case, the trademark in question was an invented word.
In this case the mark in question is a common word in the English language, with a number of meanings. Unlike the situation in the Telstra case, therefore, it is far from inconceivable that there is a plausible domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc use to which the Respondent could put the domain name.
The Respondent has asserted a legitimate use to which he has put, and intends to put, the domain name. Whilst the evidence provided in support of this assertion is not domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc strong, it is at least consistent with that assertion, and with his overall contention that he did not register and has not been using the domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant has thus failed to satisfy the burden of proof on this point. Christie as Sole Panelist in this case. Uniform Policy and Rules do not foresee submission of pleadings following the Complaint and Response. As the Administrative Panel has now been appointed in this case, and the Case File has been transmitted, the sole discretion whether to call for further particulars or pleadings now rests with the Panel, who will be copied your request.
Complainant received Respondent's Response via e-mail. The Response raises several issues that Complainant strongly feels need to be addressed, and Complainant has already submitted a request to the Panel that Complainant be allowed to file a Reply.
However, Complainant cannot complete the Reply without the benefit of Respondent's Exhibits, which Complainant has still not received. Complainant therefore respectfully requests a Stay of this Dispute, pending Complainant's receipt of Respondent's Exhibits. On the same day domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc the Complainant domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc to file the Reply, by email to the WIPO Center a copy of which was forwarded to this Administrative Panelthe Respondent communicated as follows:.
Therefore, respondent respectfully requests that Complainant's submission be disregarded. Should the Panel decide to allow the reply, Respondent wishes to rebut. The WIPO Center, in its communication with the Complainant, correctly observed that the Uniform Policy and Uniform Rules do not provide for the parties to the dispute filing supplementary submissions subsequent to the Complaint and the Response.
However, rule 12 of the Uniform Rules does provide that:. In addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties. Although litigants and parties in arbitrations may have a right of reply under the rules of other forums, ICANN chose a different procedure for these proceedings that calls for only a Complaint and a Response. Among other things, this more truncated procedure allows for more rapid and cost effective resolution of domain name challenges.
At the same time, ICANN provided domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc Panel with the flexibility to seek additional submissions if the Panel feels that it cannot rule on the record submitted.
If a Party wishes to submit a further statement, the better practice under the Rules would be to first seek consent from the Panel, with an explanation of why a further statement is warranted. Appropriate reasons may include the existence of new, pertinent facts that did not arise until after the submission of the complaint, or the desire to bring new, relevant legal authority to the attention of the Panel.
The Panel would then be in a position quickly to rule on the request and, if it determines that a further statement is warranted, set a schedule that is fair to both parties and provides each party with an opportunity to supplement the record. This procedure also would save the Parties the expense of preparing further statements that the Panel decides not to accept. See generally Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd.
There can be no doubt that neither the Complainant nor the Respondent has a right to file supplementary submissions subsequent to the Complaint and the Response. Supplementary submissions can only be filed in response to a request for such from the Panel. Accordingly, this Administrative Panel is strongly of the opinion that parties must refrain from purporting to submit unsolicited supplementary submissions. It is, of course, for each Administrative Panel to determine whether or not domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc request supplementary submissions, taking into account all the circumstances of the particular case including but not limited to any plea from a party for leave to file further material.
Nevertheless, this Administrative Panel considers that it would, and should, be in exceptional cases only that supplementary submissions are requested by a Panel. If requesting supplementary submissions were to become unexceptional, the dispute resolution procedure under the Uniform Policy and Rules would most likely become significantly more resource-consuming to all the actors ie.
This Administrative Panel has not requested any supplementary submissions and, in the absence domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc such a request, will not read them. It follows that, unless a request for a supplementary submission is made domain trade brokerage and dispatch inc this Administrative Panel, there is no need for the Respondent to file any rebuttal.
Nevertheless, this Administrative Panel considers that an abundance of caution for procedural fairness requires that the Complainant be given time to consider its position in light of the above observations and this Interim Order. Accordingly, this Administrative Panel finds that there are exceptional circumstances of the type contemplated by rule 15 b of the Uniform Rules, such as to mean that the time for forwarding a Decision in this case will be extended by two days, to July 26, It pleaded that a further statement by the Complainant was warranted for the following reasons:.
Further, Respondent has submitted legal arguments concerning Complainant's rights in his mark and Respondent's alleged "legitimate or fair use" of the Domain Name, that Complainant feels should be addressed by both Parties in order for the Panel to reach a decision, rather than require the Panel to rely solely on the unilateral statements and arguments of Respondent.
In its Interim Order of July 19,this Administrative Panel expressed the view that it should be in exceptional cases only that supplementary submissions are requested by a Panel. This Administrative Panel does not consider that the circumstances of this case are exceptional, such as to require the Panel to request the Complainant to file a Reply. The reasons for this view are set out below. The Complainant has pleaded two grounds as justifying the Panel to request a supplementary submission.
The first ground is that the Respondent has "submitted factual issues pertaining to" his alleged good faith, his dealings with representatives of the Complainant, and his use of the domain name "that are pertinent to this dispute and that are strongly disputed by Complainant".
Such circumstances are hardly exceptional. This Administrative Panel has considered carefully the Complaint and the Response filed in this case, and is satisfied that these documents are sufficient for it to properly resolve this case without reference to supplementary material.
In short, there is nothing exceptional about the facts in dispute between the parties, the disputed application of the principles of the Uniform Policy to those facts, or the form and substance of the Complaint and the Response filed by the parties, which warrants complicating the resolution of this dispute by requesting supplementary submissions from either or both of the parties.