Stevepark.com

The timeline behind stevepark.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 Steve Park v. Domain Sales a/k/a ########## This Domain Name is For Sale ########## Claim Number: FA0402000236363 PARTIES Complainant is Steve Park (“Complainant”), represented by Brad D. Rose, of Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn, LLP, 410 Park Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Respondent is Domain Sales a/k/a ########## This Domain Name is For Sale ########## (“Respondent”), Wei 35-B, Da-dong, Jung-gu 100-180 Korea. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <stevepark.com>, registered with iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra Franklin, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 6, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 6, 2004. On Feburary 6, 2004, iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <stevepark.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 has verified that Respondent is bound by the iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com registration agreement and has 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 February 10, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 1, 2004 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@stevepark.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 March 12, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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. Respondent’s <stevepark.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s STEVE PARK mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <stevepark.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <stevepark.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Steve Park, is a renowned NASCAR driver. Beginning his career as a teenager, his success has earned him accolades and publicity in the NASCAR circuit, including the Most Popular Driver Award in 1995, Rookie of the Year (in a different series) in 1997, and various victories. Complainant filed a registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on October 29, 1998. The USPTO granted the registration of the STEVE PARK mark on February 13, 2001 (Reg. No. 2,427,858) for clothing, claiming first use back to 1986. Complainant also holds the registration for <steve-park.com> domain name. Respondent registered the <stevepark.com> domain name on March 6, 1999. The disputed domain name links to a pornographic site that offers domain names for sale for up to $50,000. In the WHOIS information, “for sale” exists in the name and address fields of the Registrant, Administrative Contact, and Technical Contact. 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 draw such inferences it 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 and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant holds a registration for the STEVE PARK mark, the first use of which dates back to 1996. The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the STEVE PARK mark dating back to its filing date with the USPTO. See FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (finding that Complainant’s rights in the FDNY mark relate back to the date that its successful trademark registration was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal Register is prima facie proof of continual use of the mark, dating back to the filing date of the application for registration). The disputed domain name <stevepark.com> is identical to Complainant’s STEVE PARK mark. The only difference is a space between the Complainant’s first and last name which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark under the Policy. See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Croatia Airlines v. Kijong, AF-0302 (eResolution Sept. 25, 2000) (finding that the domain name <croatiaairlines.com> is identical to Complainant's CROATIA AIRLINES trademark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to 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) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”). Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display pornography and advertise for its sale. Using Complainant’s mark for pornography or offering it for sale is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial use, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to “define the location of Respondent’s website on the Internet” and to host a pornographic website was not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights). Additionally, given Respondent’s domain name WHOIS information, the Panel infers that Respondent is not commonly known by <stevepark.com>. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); 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 satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is obviously attempting to sell the <stevepark.com> domain name. The solicitations for an offer to buy the domain name exist not only in the text of the website, but also in the WHOIS information, where “for sale” exists in the name and address fields of the Registrant, Administrative Contact, and Technical Contact. Because the solicitations for an offer exist in the registration information, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it. The pricing scheme on the website, where domain names are offered for up to $50,000, indicates that Respondent intended to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent offered domain names for sale); see also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”). Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display pornography also exhibits bad faith. See Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to post pornographic photographs and to publicize hyperlinks to additional pornographic websites evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name); see also Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (stating that “whatever the motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain name to a pornographic site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the [d]omain [n]ame was registered and is being used in bad faith”). Additionally, Respondent intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); 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). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <stevepark.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 24, 2004 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.