Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2018-1256 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, August 15, 2018 (case Courtney Cox, Ivy Lane Living v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Betsy Riot, Betsy Riot)
| Resolution Date | August 15, 2018 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Complaint denied |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
Complainant is Courtney Cox, Ivy Lane Living of Alexandria, Virginia, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Clare Locke LLP, United States.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States / Betsy Riot, Betsy Riot of Fema Camp, Utah, United States.
The disputed domain name [ivy-lane-living.com] is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2018. On June 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 7, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 12, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 13, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 10, 2018.
The Center appointed Brian J. Winterfeldt as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
As a further procedural matter, this Complaint was filed jointly by two parties, Complainant Courtney Cox, which has been identified as an individual and co-founder and co-owner of Complainant Ivy Lane Living, a business entity. Where multiple related parties have rights in the relevant mark on which a UDRP complaint is based, a UDRP complaint may be brought by any one party or both parties filing as joint complainants.See Rules, paragraph 10(e); [Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition] (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), [section 4.11.1]. See also, e.g., Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and CME Group Inc. v. Johnson Atru,[WIPO Case No. D2015-1941]; Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited v. David Hanley,[WIPO Case No. D2016-1692].
Complainant Courtney Cox is an individual and interior design artist and professional, and co-founder and co-owner of Complainant Ivy Lane Living, an interior design business located in Alexandria, Virginia, United States (collectively, the “Complainants”). Complainant Courtney Cox is married to the National Rifle Association’s (“NRA”) chief lobbyist and principal political strategist, Chris Cox.
Complainants have used the IVY LANE LIVING mark in connection with interior design related services for approximately 10 years. Complainants opened their showroom office in Alexandria, Virginia, United States in October 2014, and registered their domain name [ivylaneliving.com] on July 2, 2014. A Google search for “Ivy Lane Living” also returns results in which Complainants’ business is featured in every result on the first page.
Complainants’ use of the IVY LANE LIVING mark pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name, [ivy-lane-living.com], which occurred on August 14, 2017.
Respondent in this case is identified as “Betsy Riot,” a political resistance group composed of loosely affiliated individual members from across the United States.
The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website that approximated Complainants’ website in look and feel, including using images from Complainants’ website, but which included political commentary and related criticism of Complainants, relating to gun control and similar issues. The disputed domain name subsequently redirected to another domain name controlled by Respondent or a party affiliated with Respondent, namely [waynelapierre.com], which was also used by Respondent or an affiliated party as a political commentary, criticism, and satire website associated with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
Complainants assert that they have common law trademark rights in the mark IVY LANE LIVING, and that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainants’ mark. Complainants assert that the IVY LANE LIVING mark is arbitrary and inherently distinctive and has been in continuous use for over a decade, and is therefore inextricably connected to Complainants’ interior design business. Complainants also assert that their common law rights in this mark have been established through Complainants’ registration and use of the domain name [ivylaneliving.com], which directs Internet users to Complainants’ primary website associated with its interior design business. Complainants also assert that such common law rights are also demonstrated by the multitude of unsolicited press about Complainants, and the Google search results for “Ivy Lane Living” which generally refer to Complainants.
According to Complainants, the disputed domain name is identical to the IVY LANE LIVING mark, as it uses the mark in its entirety, with the only distinction being the added dashes in between the words.
Complainants assert that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to Complainants, Respondent is not named and does not own a business that goes by “Ivy Lane Living,” but rather goes by the name “Betsy Riot.” Moreover, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services, but rather as part of a malicious scheme to disrupt Complainants’ business. According to Complainants, Respondent’s website located at the disputed domain name contained vulgar and offensive material that essentially claims that Complainants have profited from the deaths of children who were killed in recent mass shootings. According to Complainants, the website contained doctored images taken from Complainants’ own website that underscored Respondent’s political message. According to Complainants, Respondent also created a post on its Facebook page linking to the disputed domain name in connection with further political commentary concerning the issue of gun control in the United States. Complainants also assert that Respondent appears to have yet another...
To continue reading
Request your trial