Celebrity Arbitration; or : Keep Your Hands off my (Domain)

Name

Presentation

by

The Hon Neil Brown QC

The Czech Arbitration Court

28 March 2008

The arbitration of disputes over the domain names of celebrities.

A good start - Mr David Pecker – owner and the CEO of American Media Inc.

The domain name <davidpecker.com> was linked to the website www.davidpecker.com and then to a series of

pornographic websites,eg:

The claim : a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy (the UDRP) .

David Pecker v. Mr. Ferris; WIPO Case No. D2006-1514

Mr. Pecker had to prove a common law trademark over his name, relying on his position as owner and CEO of American Media Inc., that he had

-“… used his personal name for the purpose of advertising or promoting his business or for the sale of any goods or services”. Joacim Bruus-Jensen v. John Adamsen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0458.

The Decision

“…the Panel is not convinced, based on the limited record before it…” that the common law trademark has been made out.

A bad result for Mr. Pecker:

• He could have bought the domain name for $1600

• was it the right test that “…the Panel is not convinced” when the test is : the balance of probabilities ?

• he could have won; see-Chung Mong Koo and HyundaiMotor Company v. Individual; WIPO Case No. D2005-1068; <chungmongku.com> and <chungmongku.net>.

-Cedric Kyles v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. /Asia Ventures, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2006-0046;<cedrictheentertainer.com>.

After the case.

TYPICAL OF THE TYPE OF PROBLEMS FACED BY CELEBRITIES

Taking their names for domain names and then linking them to :

-a pornographic website

-the website of a cause the cybersquatter wants supported, eg:

-Bridget Riley v. so so domains, WIPO Case No. D2003-0600; <bridgetriley.com>; domain name linked to:

-although the celebrity likes the publicity - as in www.algore.org

-or www.davidbeckham.ws

- or an unauthorised commercial website as in :

Morgan Freeman v. Mighty LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0263; <morganfreeman.com> where the domain name was linked to this website:

...although, of course, there may be a genuine dispute as to who owns the domain name and the website

-as in Marlon Brando’s Case.

The Estate of Marlon Brando v. WhoisGuard c/o WhoisGuard Protected.NAF: FA0 0503817;

But then the case may be outside the scope of the UDRP.

THE SOLUTIONS

1. Register the domain name first. As in Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt : Shiloh Nouvel Jolie Pitt. But see:

Contrast Britney Spears and Kevin Federline and their baby Sutton

Pierce Federline <suttonpiercefederline.com> .

2. Pay up and buy the domain name : Pecker, Armani.

3. Take Court action… breach of trademark , trust, contract , passing off or under Statute.

4. Bring a Complaint under the Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy (UDRP).

…. the best course of action - compulsory, quick; cheap; no appeal…. transfer, cancellation - or dismissal of claim

…. drawbacks : no injunction, damages, costs or interest.

PROOF REQUIRED

All complainants under the UDRP, including celebrities, have to prove that:

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

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

May be an unregistered trademark1.

1Note the Australian policy for .auDA arbitration, where the Complainant may rely on - a ‘ personal name.’

Some celebrities have registered trademarks, which solves the whole

problem of proving an unregistered trademark.

Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",WIPO Case No. D2000-0847;<madonna.com>. Madonna had a registered trademark as well as an unregistered trademark - either was sufficient.

Thank Heavens Ihave a registered

trademark

The Rolling Stones - a long string of registered trademarks:

Musidor B.V. v. Jung Hochul; NAF Case: FA0 0103053;<rollingstones.com>

Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Denny Hammerton and The Jimi

Hendrix Fan Club WIPO Case No. D2000-0364;<jimihendrix.com>

Joanne Rowling v. Alvaro Collazo, WIPO Case No. D2004-0787; <kjkrowling.com> and <www-jkrowling.com>; and

Joanne Rowling v.Hostine.net, WIPO Case No. DIR2006-0004; <jkrowling.ir>.

Dodi Al Fayed in Harrods Limited v Robert Boyd,WIPO

Case No. D2000-0060, <dodialfayed.com>.

THE REGISTERED TRADEMARK

Where ?

Bernardka Pulko ( Slovenia) v. Greg Frazier ( Denver,Col),WIPO Case No.

D2006-0099 ; <benkapulko.com>; Slovenia.

THE UNREGISTERED OR COMMON LAW TRADEMARK

Unregistered or common law trademarks are sufficient to commence

UDRP proceedings. Can be important, for the common law rights may pre-date the registration of the domain name: White Castle Way, Inc. v. Glyn

O. Jacobs, WIPO Case No. D2004-0001; <patbenatar.com>.

The test:

“…the mere fact of having a successful career as an actress, singer or

TV program star does not provide exclusive rights to the use of a name

under the trademark laws. The cases require a clear showing of high

commercial value and significant recognition of the name as solely that

of the performer.”

• Anna Nicole Smith c/o CMG Worldwide v. DNS Research, Inc.NAF Case No: FA0 220007, <annanicolesmith.com>.

Celebrities who have been able to establish domain names in their own names

Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd,WIPO Case No. D2000-0210;<juliaroberts.com>.

Serena Williams and Venus Williams v. Eileen White Byrne and

Allgolfconsultancy, WIPO Case No. D 2000-1673; <venusandserenawilliams.com>

Dr. Werner Kupper [Executor of the Estate of The late Herbert von

Karajan] and Eliette von Karajan v. Karajan

Pty Ltd,WIPO Case No.D2000-1578;<karajan.com>

Monty Roberts ‘ The Horse Whisperer’:Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith,

WIPO Case No. D2000-0299; <montyroberts.net>

Richard Juzwin (Australia) v. Glen Stephens Stamps (Jackson MI,) NAF: FA0 0097690. <richardjuzwin.com>

Cedric Kyles v. Domains by Proxy, Inc.Asia Ventures, Inc.

WIPO Case No. D2006-0046 <cedrictheentertainer.com>.

CMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Naughtya Page, NAF:

FA0095641:<princessdi.com> and <princessdiana.com>.

Dame Elizabeth Taylor, The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics

Company & Interplanet Productions Limited v. Day After

c/o Robert Chafino; NAF Case No: FA0653586; <houseoftaylorjewelry.com> and <houseoftaylorjewelry.net>.

ICE-T in Tracy Marrow p/k/a "ICE-T" v. iceT.com a/k/a

Sverrir Geirmundsson,WIPO Case No. D2000-1234.

Estate of Shakur v. Shakur Info Page, AF-0346 (eResolution Sept. 28, 2000)Mr.Tupac Shakur.

Jeffrey Archer in Jeffrey Archer v. Alberta Hotrods tda CELEBRITY 1000

WIPO Case No. D20060431

Fondation Le Corbusier v. Mercado M.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0723.

Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO CaseNo. D2006-0560.

Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party WIPO Case No.D2000-1415 ; <nicholekidman.com> and <nicolekidmannude.com>.

Celebrities Who Have Failed to Establish a Common Law Trademark

SCIENTISTS

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods,WIPOCase No. D2002-0616;<alberteinstein.com> .Albert Einstein :“… no evidence… that

Dr. Einstein used his name for commercial purposes during his lifetime nor that his name, famous though it was, became identified as a source of goods or services”.

EVANGELISTS

The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn,

Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184.

Gene Edwards v. David Miller, WIPO Case No. D2003-0339;<geneedwards.org>

“… in the religious context of the Complainant’s activities, the Panel is not prepared to assume that these are commercial as well as religious undertakings”.

Gurus and yogas have fared better:

Chinmoy Kumar Ghose .v ICDSoft.com and Maria Sliwa, WIPO Case No.D2003-0248;<aboutsrichinmoy.com>,

<gurusrichinmoy.com>.

“ There is evidence of published works being sold online at

"www.amazon.com" under… "Sri Chinmoy," and … a broadcasting service …”

POLITICIANS

Succeeded

Anne McLellan v. Smartcanuk.com, AF 0303 (eResolution Sept 25, 2000) <annemclellan.com> and <annemclellan.org>. Succeeded.

Mark Warner 2001 v Mike Larson, NAF: FA0095746 :<markwarner2001.com>

“… not a movie star, an NFL quarterback, or a member of the Canadian Parliament, has, in the opinion of the undersigned, established sufficient common law rights in his name. Mr. Warner is a former candidate for the U.S. Senate and is the presumptive candidate for Governor of theCommonwealth of Virginia in 2001.”

Failed

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend v. B. G. Birt, WIPO Case No. D2002-0030 was… a public figure, but no commercial element.

Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Michelle Dinoia a/k/a SZK.com,

NAF Case No.: FA0414641(2005).

Fields for Senate v. Toddles Inc.

WIPO Case No. D2006-1510<virginiafields.com>. Virginia Fields; no evidence use in commerce or as a source of goods or services.

BUSINESS PEOPLE

It is harder for businesspeople to establish trademarks in their ownname because the name is not often the alter ego of the company orthe product.

Succeeded

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Mrs. Helen Walton v. Bestinfo/David

Webb,WIPO Case No. D2005-0086; <samwalton.com>;Company

succeeded .

Unsuccesful cases

David Pecker’s Case.

Also :

-Israel Harold Asper v. Communication X Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0540;<izzyasper.com>

-Leonard Asper v. Communication X Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0539,< leonardasper.com>

Another unsuccessful case : Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v Michael

Urvan; WIPO Case No. D2000-0596;<sting.com>.

Before

After

RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

A celebrity complainant in UDRP proceedings must then prove the second element under paragraph 4 of the Policy :

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; …

Examples of bona fide offering of goods or services under sub-paragraph (i)

- using the domain name in the registrant’s own business

Dr. Werner Kupper [Executor of the Estate of The late Herbert von

Karajan] and Eliette von Karajan v. Karajan Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No.D2000-1578;<karajan.com>.

Examples : of sub-paragraph (ii): name

G. A. Modefine S.A. v. A.R. Mani ; WIPO Case No. D2001-0537 ;<armani.com>.

Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Pro Fiducia Treuhand AG

WIPO Case No. D2001-0916; <maggi.com>; decision 1 Oct 2001;

Website on 26 Sept 2001:

Website by 2003

Weider Publications Inc. v. Don Ho Cha, WIPO Case No.D2001-0105;<musclenfitness.com>.

Examples of fair use under sub-paragraph(iii):’ free speech cases, criticism, fan sites, ‘sucks’ cases.

Sam Francis: Frederick M. Nicholas, Administrator, The Sam Francis Estate v. Magidson Fine Art, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2000-0673;<samfrancis.com>.

Fair use; Respondent made clear that it was a commercial art gallery selling only Sam Francis works. No misleading assertion that it is sponsored or authorized by the artist.

Opposite result in Thomas Blackshear v. Christ-Centered Mall, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0736;<thomasblackshear.com>; other artists were sold, implying approval by those other artists ; there was therefore no right or legitimate interest

Similar : Fondation Le Corbusier v. Mercado MWIPO Case No. D20040723;<lecorbusier.com>; commercial links; email accounts; appeared as the officialsite ?

BAD FAITH

The third element that must be proved under the UDRP is bad faith.

“(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy then sets out four circumstances, any one of

which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad

faith.

But other circumstances may also be relied on, as the four

circumstances are not exclusive.

The four specified circumstances are:

“(i) …acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling… the domain name … to the complainant …; or

(ii) …to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name …in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) …disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) …creating a likelihood of confusion … as to…endorsement…of the respondent’s website or… a product or service ….”

SUCCESSFUL

May be a case of ‘general’ bad faith, without relying on one of the specified circumstances; eg

-where the domain name was linked to a pornography webite:

-Madonna’s Case (supra)

-A & F Trademark, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch

Stores, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., Inc. v. Party Night,Inc., supra ;

-or other extremist website:

-True Blue Productions, Inc. v. Chris Hoffman; WIPO Case No. D2004-0930 <fatactress.com> (Kirstie Alley); aimed at her directly, to attract viewers.

Paragraph 4 (b) (i) :Intending to sell the domain name to the Complainant

The Wiggles Touring Pty Ltd v. Thompson Media Pty Ltd ( supra):…a clear intention to sell.

The bad faith may be in demanding a benefit other than money:

-Mr. Severiano Ballesteros Sota etc. v. Patrick Waldron,WIPO Case No. D2001-0351;

"4 complimentary tickets for the Seve Ballesteros for every year that theSeve Ballesteros Trophy takes place or some such other gesture whether monetary or otherwise.”

-MPL Communications, Limited and MPL Communications, Inc. v

LOVEARTH.net, (supra), Paul MacCartney ;endorsement;

-Metallica v. Schneider FA 95636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2000) a meeting, phone calls and interview with Metallica.

Important to produce all of the correspondence :Die Marlene Dietrich Collection GmbH v. Du Plesis; WIPO Case No. D2007-1306;<marlenedietrich.com>.

Paragraph 4 (b) (ii) : preventing the registration of a corresponding

domain name

Bruce Springsteen v. Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club ; WIPOCase No. D2000-1532;<brucespringsteen.com>.

Paragraph 4 (b) (iii) : disrupting the business of a competitor;

-Richard Juzwin (Australia) v. Glen Stephens Stamps (Jackson MI,) (supra).

Paragraph 4 (b) (iv) : confusing internet users on endorsement ;

-Kendra Todd v. Real Estate Radio c/o Leo Miller,(supra)

-Richard Juzwin (Australia) v. Glen Stephens Stamps (Jackson MI,) (supra)

- David Gilmour etc v. Ermanno Cenicolla; WIPO Case No D2000-1459; <davidgilmour.com> (Pink Floyd) .

-Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. KeithMalley.com; WIPO Case No.D2007-0760;<thesimpsonsmovie.com>

FINDING OF NO BAD FAITH

Where the registrant has acted legitimately, not claiming anything other thanselling paintings of a particular painter and not claiming to be the official site, there isno bad faith .

-Frederick M. Nicholas, Administrator , The Sam Francis Estate v.

Magidson Fine Art, Inc WIPO Case D2000-0673;<samfrancis.com>.

-Opposite result in Thomas Blackshear v. Christ-Centered Mall, Inc.,WIPO CaseNo. D2002-0736;<thomasblackshear.com>; work of other artists was sold, suggesting approval

by the artists and therefore bad faith .

Not bad faith when registrant of the domain name did not know of the Complainant, as in :

-Borges, S.A., Tanio, S.A.U. v. James English,WIPO Case No.

D2007-0477; <borges.com>; Jorge Luis Borges.

Cases can be and are lost on bad faith because of the lack of evidence

- Edward Van Halen v. Deborah Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2000-1313;<edwardvanhalen.com>.

-Scorpions etc. v. Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. 2001-0787;<scorpions.com>.

-Nintendo Inc. v. Alex Jones,WIPO Case No. D2000-0998;<legendofzelda.com>.

CONCLUSION : THE CELEBRITY’S LAMENT

CLIVE JAMES ( during TV interview): Actually, I had to buy my name, you know? I had to buy it from the pirate who had bought up all the well-known names in England and is now selling them to the original people at £1,500 a throw, which is slightly less than what it costs to sue the bastard. Am I allowed to say that?

AMANDA KELLER (interviewer): Of course you are.

Thank you.

The Hon Neil Brown QC

PO Box 2140

St Kilda West

VIC 3182

AUSTRALIA

Telephone in Australia (03) 9534 5436

Int + 61 3 9534 5436

Mobile telephone in Australia 0400 123 254

Int + 61 400 123 254

© The Hon N A Brown QC. All rights reserved. 2007

Powerpoint show prepared with the assistance of Andrew Lovett