Sunsetthomas.com

The timeline behind sunsetthomas.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Diane Hof a/k/a Sunset Thomas v. Lorna Kang Claim Number: FA0303000151119 PARTIES Complainant is Diane Hof a/k/a Sunset Thomas, Carson City, NV, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Allan B. Gelbard. Respondent is Lorna Kang, Perak, MALAYSIA (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sunsetthomas.com> registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 21, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 24, 2003. On March 21, 2003, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <sunsetthomas.com> is registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com registration agreement and thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On March 27, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 16, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sunsetthomas.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 26, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 makes the following assertions: 1. The domain name registered by Respondent, <sunsetthomas.com>, is identical to Complainant’s SUNSET THOMAS mark. 2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is an internationally famous actress, model and entertainer who has been known by and performed exclusively under the name “Sunset Thomas” since 1992. Complainant’s fame derives from her 10 years of adult entertainment experience, including a role in the HBO special “Cat House” and numerous starring roles in productions by VCA Pictures. Respondent registered the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name November 13, 2001. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer adult entertainment services that compete with Complainant by implying her affiliation, endorsement or connection with the services provided by Respondent. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." 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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. 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. Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000). Complainant has been known by and has performed exclusively under the name “Sunset Thomas” since 1992. Thus, Complainant has a bona fide basis for making this claim pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because she has worked under that name for as many as 10 years. See Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the Complaint in the first place); see also Sade v. Quantum Computer Serv., Inc., D2000-0794 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (“Although the Complainant has not registered the word ‘SADE’ either as a trademark or as a service mark in any jurisdiction, the Complainant has adapted the word ‘SADE’ as her stage-name and as a trademark and service mark and this Administrative Panel . . . is further satisfied that the Complainant has established that she has common law rights in the said mark”). The domain name registered by Respondent, <sunsetthomas.com>, is identical to Complainant’s SUNSET THOMAS mark because the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and simply adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the end of the mark. The addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)’s “confusingly similar” analysis. See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson & Scanlon, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES); see also Victoria's Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that the <bodybyvictoria.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BODY BY VICTORIA mark). Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Respondent neglected to provide a Response to the allegations of the Complaint. Thus, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do). Furthermore, Respondent rejected its opportunity to establish circumstances that could demonstrate its rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent never submitted a response nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond). Respondent is using the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to its competing website, which offers adult entertainment services. Respondent’s commercial use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website); see also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks). Respondent has not come forward with any proof and no evidence in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by either SUNSET THOMAS or sunsetthomas.com>. Thus, Respondent failed to establish that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name to offer adult entertainment services in competition with Complainant. Registration and use of a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See General Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business). The Panel may infer that Respondent is deriving commercial gain from its operation of an adult entertainment website. By creating likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for its commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Kahn, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sunsetthomas.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: May 12, 2003. Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.