Rollingstonecanada.com

The timeline behind rollingstonecanada.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 Rolling Stone, LLC v. Robert Downey Claim Number: FA2502002140701 PARTIES Complainant is Rolling Stone, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jordan LaVine of Flaster Greenberg PC, United States. Respondent is Robert Downey ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rollingstonecanada.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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 Forum electronically on February 18, 2025; Forum received payment on February 18, 2025. On February 18, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <rollingstonecanada.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 February 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@rollingstonecanada.com. Also on February 21, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 is the publisher of Rolling Stone, a magazine that focuses on music, politics, and pop culture. Complainant has used the ROLLING STONE mark since at least as early as 1967 in connection with the magazine and other products and services, and asserts that the mark has become famous as a result of the magazine's success and popularity. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for ROLLING STONE in standard character and stylized form in the United States, Canada, and other jurisdictions across the globe. The disputed domain name <rollingstonecanada.com> was registered in October 2024. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website that prominently displays Complainant's ROLLING STONE mark and logo and otherwise mimics the appearance and content of Complainant's website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <rollingstonecanada.com> is confusingly similar to its ROLLING STONE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a 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 and 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <rollingstonecanada.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ROLLING STONE trademark, omitting the space and adding the geographic term "Canada" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. & Retail Royalty Co. v. Web Commerce Communications Ltd. / Client Care / Dina Bishop, FA 2053578 (Forum Aug. 29, 2023) (finding <americaneaglecanada.com> confusingly similar to AMERICAN EAGLE); Lady of Leisure Holdings Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 1992406 (Forum May 18, 2022) (finding <sweatybettycanada.com> confusingly similar to SWEATY BETTY); Chan Luu Inc. v. Byron Gossett, FA 1500891 (Forum June 25, 2013) (finding <chanluucanada.com> confusingly similar to CHAN LUU). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is being used for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to offer competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. Surabhi Rathore, FA 2120375 (Forum Nov. 11, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Deseret Management Corp. v. Quang Le / Quang Coca, FA 2118801 (Forum Oct. 24, 2024) (same); Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. jordan french, FA 2101585 (Forum July 9, 2024) (same); WP Co. LLC v. Pradeep Kumar, FA 2094069 (Forum May 16, 2024) (same); Deseret Management Corp. v. Le Ha / Desert News, FA 2092426 (Forum May 2, 2024) (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to the Panel to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information not register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known registered mark. Respondent is using the domain name for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to offer competing services, for what the Panel infers to be Respondent's commercial gain. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. Surabhi Rathore, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Deseret Management Corp. v. Quang Le / Quang Coca, supra (same); Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. jordan french, supra (same); WP Co. LLC v. Pradeep Kumar, supra (same); Deseret Management Corp. v. Le Ha / Desert News, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rollingstonecanada.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: March 14, 2025 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.