Democraticconvention.com

The timeline behind democraticconvention.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. v. Fernstrom Inc. Claim Number: FA0703000933062 PARTIES Complainant is 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph E. Sandler, of Sandler, Reiff & Young, 50 E Street, S.E. #300, Washington, DC 20003. Respondent is Fernstrom Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Stephen R. Smith, of Powell Goldstein LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001-4413. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <democraticconvention.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 5, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 6, 2007. On March 6, 2007, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <democraticconvention.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 March 13, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 2, 2006 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@democraticconvention.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 29, 2007. An Additional Submission from Complainant was received on April 2, 2007, and was considered to be timely and complete pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7. An Additional Submission from Respondent was received on April 4, 2007, and was considered to be timely and complete pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7. On April 5, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <democraticconvention.com> is confusingly similar to the registered service mark DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office registration number 2,087,234. Complainant states that it is the owner of this mark as a successor organization to and assignee of the 1996 Democratic National Convention Committee, which originally registered the mark in 1997. Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, having registered it in August 1998 but never having used it for a website or any offering of goods or services. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or its competitors at a substantial profit, and because if Respondent does plan to use the domain name in the future, such use will be for the purpose of misleading Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. In support of its contentions as to bad faith, Complainant states that Respondent’s principal is a former Republican convention official, and describes a telephone conversation in which she allegedly stated that she expected to receive a substantial price for the domain name. B. Respondent Respondent contends that Complainant is not the owner of the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION registered mark, because in fact the mark was registered to the Democratic National Convention Committee Inc. and subsequently assigned to the Democratic National Committee, Inc., rather than to Complainant, as asserted in the Complaint. Respondent contends that Complainant has failed to make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent contends that Complainant has failed to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Respondent disputes the relevance of its principal’s political associations, and provides a sworn affidavit in which Respondent’s principal contradicts Complainant’s account of the parties’ telephone conversation. The affidavit states that Respondent did not register the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it, and that Respondent has never offered it for sale. C. Additional Submissions Both parties have tendered Additional Submissions pursuant to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7. The parties’ Additional Submissions primarily restate arguments contained in the parties’ initial submissions or respond to material contained in opposing submissions that the parties should have anticipated. While Supplemental Rule 7 sets forth a procedure for the submission of additional statements and documents, it does not confer upon parties any right to have such submissions considered by a panel. Under Paragraph 12 of ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), discretion to request additional submissions rests solely with the Panel, and such submissions should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Aylward v. GNO, Inc., FA 751622 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2006). Having carefully reviewed the record before the Panel and the parties’ Additional Submissions, the Panel finds no such circumstances to be present in this case, and therefore disregards both parties’ Additional Submissions in their entirety. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.” 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; (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 The disputed domain name is quite similar to the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION registered mark; the primary issue here is whether Complainant has rights in that mark. The Panel does not consider the distinctions between the various affiliated entities (the Democratic National Committee, the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, and predecessor convention committees) to be consequential for purposes of this proceeding, and notes that the parties themselves seem to have treated these entities interchangeably for most purposes. The Policy requires merely that Complainant have rights in the mark, not that it be the owner of the mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has never made active use of the name despite having registered it more than eight years ago. This allegation suffices to shift the burden of production to Respondent, to rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing with concrete evidence that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, although the ultimate burden of proof remains with Complainant. See Deer Valley Resort Co. v. Intermountain Lodging, FA 471005 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 9, 2005). Respondent has not met that burden of production in this case. Indeed, Respondent has not offered any basis from which the Panel might reasonably conclude that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, let alone concrete evidence of such rights or interests. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or its competitors at a substantial profit. Such circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall serve as evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. In support of its claim Complainant refers to a telephone conversation between the parties, although the content of that conversation is in dispute. The Panel does not consider that evidence to be particularly probative. However, the Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name over eight years ago, has apparently made no active use of it during that period, and—most tellingly—offers no explanation of its reasons for registering the domain name, let alone a plausible reason or one supported by evidence. Although the Panel is exceedingly reluctant to find bad faith registration and use based upon mere passive holding of a domain name, Respondent has not provided the Panel with any viable alternative explanation for its actions. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <democraticconvention.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: April 10, 2007 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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