Tigerwoodslifestyle.com

The timeline behind tigerwoodslifestyle.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 Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods v. Rafael Navarro da Cunha Claim Number: FA0902001245906 PARTIES Complainant is Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods (“Complainant”), represented by Julie Lewis-Sroka, of IMG Worldwide, Inc., Ohio, USA. Respondent is Rafael Navarro da Cunha (“Respondent”), represented by Aaron Behar, of Lydecker, Lee, Behar, Berga & de Zayas, LLC, Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <tigerwoodslifestyle.com>, registered with Universo Online S.A. 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. Hon. Sir Ian Barker. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 3, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 4, 2009. On February 19, 2009, Universo Online S.A. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <tigerwoodslifestyle.com> domain name is registered with Universo Online S.A. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Universo Online S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Universo Online S.A. 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 24, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 16, 2009 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@tigerwoodslifestyle.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 17, 2009. On March 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Sir Ian Barker as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant is a professional golfer with a worldwide reputation. He has achieved great prominence in his sport. He is well-known throughout the world through media exposure, particularly from the coverage of golf tournaments, exhibitions and charity events. The name “TIGER WOODS” is registered with the US Patent & Trade Mark Office. The registration is dated April 10, 2001 in the name of ETW Corporation, which is the Complainant’s personal service corporation. The Complaint ought, strictly speaking, to have been brought in the name of ETW Corporation which owns the registered trademark referred to above. However, a common law mark attaching to Mr Woods personally is clearly available and would give the Complainant the right to file this Complaint in his personal name. His name is used widely in connection with the market of a wide range of goods and services to such a degree as to warrant the finding of a common law mark. The Respondent has no rights to use the name “Tiger Woods”. When an internet user wishes to visit the website accessed by the disputed domain name, the user will see an offer for the sale of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the “Tiger Woods” name and there is no evidence of any preparations by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services using the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It was registered on January 13, 2009. On January 14, 2009, the Respondent sent an email to the Chief Executive of the corporation owning the trademark proposing to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. He said that he had received a proposal from a Chinese group to build a portal for sales amounting US$250m. B. Respondent The Respondent does not contest the allegations made in the Complaint and does not contest the transfer of the disputed domain name, as requested by the Complainant. On March 16, 2009, the Respondent’s representative claimed that he had attempted to contact counsel for the Complainant in order to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant but that the Complainant’s attorney refused to negotiate any such resolution regardless of terms. The Respondent makes no admission with respect to any matter concerning the alleged use of the Complainant’s marks and reserves any applicable defences in respect thereof. FINDINGS (a) The Complainant has indirect rights in a registered trademark for the words TIGER WOODS and direct rights in a common law trademark for the words TIGER WOODS. (b) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. (c) The Respondent has no rights or interest in the disputed domain name. (d) The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. (e) The Respondent does not oppose the relief requested by the Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the 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. However, where a respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See Tex. Med. Ctr. v. Spinder, FA 886496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Fed. 19, 2007) (foregoing the traditional Policy analysis where the respondent stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complaint); see also Adams v. Truth About Jos, FA 907564 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2007) (concluding that when a respondent stipulates to the transfer of the disputed domain name in its response or expresses a willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, the Panel can forego an analysis of the Policy and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Secure Whois Info. Serv., FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2007) (“In light of Respondent’s requests that the Panel enter an order transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant without findings of fact on the elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and the lack of any objection thereto, the Panel declines to set forth or address the Parties’ contentions”); see also Californian Acad. of Scis. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 944494 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007); see also Health Advantage Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 1232766 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 22, 2008). The same approach can be found in WIPO decisions such as Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. VEZ-Port (D2000-0207) and Slumberland France v. Acohuri (D2000-0195). Because the Respondent has indicated that he does not contest the transfer of the disputed domain name but did not actually say he consented to the transfer, it is proper to record by way of a summary the finding: (a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; (b) The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name and has not suggested any matter which would bring it within paragraph 4(c) of the Policy; (c) The registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, as is witnessed by the approach by the Respondent, shortly after registering the disputed domain name to the Complainant to sell the disputed domain name and the notation on the website that the disputed domain name is for sale. A finding in summary form on the three Policy criteria is justified by the Respondent’s lack of contest. 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 <tigerwoodslifestyle.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Sir Ian Barker, Panelist Dated: April 6, 2009 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.