• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
6/5/09 11:35 AMClinton Decision (L0348567.DOC;1)Page 1 of 8http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1256123.htm
 
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION
 William J. Clinton and The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation v. Web of DeceptionClaim Number: FA0904001256123
 PARTIES
Complainant is
William J. Clinton
and
The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation
(“Complainant”), represented by
Michael Maoz
, of 
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
, NewYork, USA. Respondent is
Web of Deception
(“Respondent”), represented by
Joseph Culligan
, of 
Post Office Box 52-1636
, Florida, USA. 
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are
<williamclinton.com>
,
<williamjclinton.com>
and
<presidentbillclinton.com>
, registered with
The Name It Corporation
d/b/a
Nameservices.net
. 
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. R. Glen Ayers served as Panelist. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 6,2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 6, 2009. On April 13, 2009, Tthe Name It Corporation d/b/a Nameservices.net confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the
<williamclinton.com>
,
<williamjclinton.com>
and
<presidentbillclinton.com>
domain names are registered with the Name It Corporation d/b/a Nameservices.net and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names. The Name ItCorporation d/b/a Nameservices.net has verified that Respondent is bound by the The Name ItCorporation d/b/a Nameservices.net registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolvedomain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain NameDispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On April 22, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding(the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 12, 2009 by which Respondent couldfile a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to allentities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billingcontacts, and to postmaster@williamclinton.com, postmaster@williamjclinton.com and postmaster@presidentbillclinton.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 11, 2009. 
 
6/5/09 11:35 AMClinton Decision (L0348567.DOC;1)Page 2 of 8http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1256123.htm
An Additional Submission for Complainant was timely received on May 18, 2009.Respondent timely files its Additional Submission in Response on May 22, 2009.On May 18, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers served as Panelist. 
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. 
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONSA. Complainant
Complainant, the former President of the United States, William J. Clinton, through counsel, assertsthat the three referenced domain names, <williamclinton.com>, <williamjclinton.com>, and<presidentbillclinton.com> are identical to or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name. TheComplainant asserts that he has established a common law trademark in his name, William Clintonand its variations. The Complainant offers the following facts to establish the existence of acommon law trademark.
 
His election and service as the 42
nd
President of the United States 
 
His election and service as the Governor of the State of Arkansas for two separate terms 
 
His authorship of a series of best-selling books, including
 Putting People First 
(1992);
 Between Hope and History
(1996); and
My Life
(2004) 
 
His recognitions of Time’s Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1992 
 
His selection as the 17
th
Most Admired Person of the 20
th
Century according to a Gallop poll 
 
The philanthropic foundations founded by him which bear his name (several of these entitieshold registered as federal trademarks) Complainant asserts that this common law trademark was well-established at least by 1992 and inuse since that period.As Complainant points out, the Respondent has registered three domain names which are identical tothe alleged common law trademark. Complainant, in its introductory materials, goes on to assert thatRespondent is known to deliberately register domain names of politicians for various nefariousreasons.Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain namesand has not made any demonstrable preparation to use the domain names in the context of any“
bona fide
offering of goods or services.”Respondent asserts that Complainant does not own any trademark registrations reflecting the namesand Respondent is not commonly known by the names. Respondent is also, Complainant asserts, notcommonly known by the names. Complainant also takes the opportunity to rebut any alleged use byRespondent which is non-commercial or fair use.Complainant follows by alleging a number of factors which could show bad faith. The first evidenceis the identity of the domain name to the alleged common law mark. Complainant also argues that
 
6/5/09 11:35 AMClinton Decision (L0348567.DOC;1)Page 3 of 8http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1256123.htm
  bad faith is shown because the domains provide direct links to a website for the Republican NationalCommittee.Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s conduct in registering famous names, particularly thenames of politicians such as President Obama and Senator John McCain shows “a pattern of registering famous names to prevent the rightful owners the ability to register their names as domainnames.”
B. Respondent
In Response, Respondent goes to the trouble of admitting and denying each and every allegationcontained in the Complaint. Respondent first asserts that there is no evidence that there is a commonlaw mark. While Respondent is willing to admit that the Complainant is famous, Respondent deniesthe facts alleged to support the existence of a common law mark.As to rights in the name, Respondent makes little attempt to assert rights in the name and goesalmost directly to the issues of bad faith. However, Respondent does assert that he has used “the sitein connection with a
bona fide
offering of goods or services.” Respondent asserts that the link to theRepublican National Committee website constitutes such an offering.In denying bad faith, Respondent sets forth at length his activities in registering the names of  politicians and his use of the registration process in this arena. He specifically denies that any of theelements of bad faith set forth at UDRP 4(b) exist, for he has not registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it, or to prevent the owner of the mark from using the name in a correspondingdomain name or in order to disrupt business, or in order to attract Internet users for commercialgain. Certainly, he says, there is no such evidence presented.Respondent throughout asserts that his registration and use of the domain names constitutes fair useand should be considered constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment the UnitedStates Constitution.
C. Additional Submissions
 
Complainant’s Additional Submission
The Complainant filed a timely Additional Submission. In its Additional Submission, Complainantfocuses upon its argument that there is a common law mark citing a number of cases, but not addingany particular facts.As to rights in the name, Complainant focuses in its Response on the issue of fair use of the domainname in an attempt to show that, irrespective of the political context of this dispute, that Respondentstill has shown no rights in the name.Finally, there is a long discussion of events that allegedly show Respondent’s bad faith. Thoseinclude articles about Respondent reprinted from newspapers. Finally, the Additional Submissionconcludes by arguing that when a web user attempting to reach a website related to the Complainantwinds up on a website sponsored by the Republican National Committee, such a result is evidence of  bad faith. In fact, Complainant suggests in its Additional Submission that an Internet user might beconfused and think that former President Clinton had become a Republican. After all, saysComplainant, Senator Arlen Spector recently left the Republican Party and became a Democrat.
Respondent’s Additional Submission
Respondents timely Additional Submission first focuses on the issue of common law marks, arguingthat most of the famous person common law mark opinions are defaults. As to bad faith, 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...