Grammyss.com

The timeline behind grammyss.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 National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. v. Jaccas Milan Claim Number: FA2205001997007 PARTIES Complainant is National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joel R. Feldman of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Atlanta, USA. Respondent is Jaccas Milan (“Respondent”), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <grammyss.com>, registered with 123-Reg Limited. 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 19, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 19, 2022. On May 23, 2022, 123-Reg Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <grammyss.com> domain name is registered with 123-Reg Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 123-Reg Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the 123-Reg Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On May 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@grammyss.com. Also on May 27, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 27, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 Complainant asserts trademark rights in GRAMMY and GRAMMYS. Complainant holds national registrations for those trademarks. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant was established in 1957 to promote artistic progress and achievements in the field of music and other recordings; 2. to recognize these achievements, in 1959 the Complainant began issuing awards, so-called GRAMMY Awards, at an annual awards ceremony; 3. the award winners receive a statuette representation of a gramophone machine (“grammy” having become an abbreviation for that machine); 4. the GRAMMY Awards have been televised live for over 50 years and have come to be regularly referred to as the GRAMMYS; 5. Complainant owns United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registrations for both GRAMMY and GRAMMYS, the latter mark (“the Trademark”), being registered as Reg. No. 2,630,880 from October 8, 2002; 6. the disputed domain name was registered on April 3, 2022 and resolves to a website using the trademark GRAMMY, Complainant’s “gramophone” logo mark, and which states, inter alia, “Click to Watch Free Grammy Awards Live Streams”; and 7. there is no relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the Trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the Trademark. 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; 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. 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(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides proof of registration of the Trademark with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the Trademark. The disputed domain name takes the Trademark to which it adds an additional letter, “s”, and the gTLD, “.com”. The gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison and the term “grammyss” is phonetically identical to the Trademark. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Coinbase, Inc. v. gary gay, FA 1983825 (Forum Mar. 8, 2022) finding <coins-base.net> confusingly similar to complainant’s COINBASE trademark). The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624). The domain name registrant is “Jaccas Milan”. There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which uses Complainant’s trademark GRAMMY, its logo trademark, and offers Internet users the chance to stream the Complainant’s award ceremony for free. Complainant asserts that it is the copyright owner of the GRAMMY Awards telecast and has the exclusive right to show the awards ceremony. The prevailing view is that such use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use (see, for example, ABS-CBN International v. JAN PAUL MANCHING, FA 1575590 (Forum Sept. 21, 2014) finding that where the domain name resolved to a website that streamed complainant’s programming and also used the complainant’s trademark without complainant’s permission, such use could not constitute a bona fide offering of goods under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) (“The usage of Complainant’s NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio visual services for unauthorised audio visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks a right or interest in the disputed domain name. The onus shifts to Respondent. Absent a Response that onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: ‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’ The Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The likelihood is that the resolving website exists for commercial gain in one form or another. In terms of the Policy the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name was intended to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and used the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimicked Complainant’s website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”; Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating complainant’s mark to divert complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv)”); ABS-CBN International v. JAN PAUL MANCHING, cited above). The Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is 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 <grammyss.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: June 29, 2022 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.