| |
|
Domain Name Dispute: Request to transfer DENIED!
Savage is attempted to seize our domain name. Lawyers for Talk Radio Network, Inc. (Savage's radio syndication partner) asserted that it is "confusingly similar" to michaelsavage.com and said "Savage Nation" listeners are unable to tell the difference between "michael" and "stupidity" (neither can we), they also claimed violation of a non-existent trademark.
Excerpted Text from Decision
The Panel finds that the <savagestupidity.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name includes the term “stupidity” after Complainant’s mark. Internet users would not confuse Respondent’s domain name with Complainant’s mark because the addition of the term “stupidity” indicates that the disputed domain name has no affiliation with Complainant’s mark. See Robo Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2000) (noting that using a negative domain name for the purposes of criticism, such as <walmartcanadasucks.com>, does not create confusion with the service mark of Complainant); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Parisi, D2000-1015 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2001) (finding that “common sense and a reading of the plain language of the Policy support the view that a domain name combining a trademark with the word “sucks” or other such language clearly indicates that the domain name is not affiliated with the trademark owner and therefore <lockheedmartinsucks.com> and <lockheedsucks.com> cannot be considered confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the <savagestupidity.com> domain name is comprised of generic terms “savage” and “stupidity.” See Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, FA 96364 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2001) (finding that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where “Respondent has persuasively shown that the domain name is comprised of generic and/or descriptive terms, and, in any event, is not exclusively associated with Complainant’s business”); see also Zero Int'l Holding v. Beyonet Servs., D2000-0161 (WIPO May 12, 2000) (stating that "[c]ommon words and descriptive terms are legitimately subject to registration as domain names on a 'first-come, first-served' basis").
NEWS, 06/05/2003: UDRP decision on humphreybogart.com - why is this relevant? Under this logic, Talk Radio Network, Inc. has no standing to pursue a UDRP complaint.
Don't see a frame with buttons to your left? Click here.
|
|
|
