Former United States president Bill Clinton has lost a challenge for three domain names.
Bill Clinton had a way of winning at the polls, but he couldn’t persuade an arbitrator this month that he should have rights to the domain names williamclinton.com, williamjclinton.com and presidentbillclinton.com.
The domain names were registered by an outfit called “Web of Deception” and allegedly forwarded to the Republican National Committee’s web site. The arbitrator decided that the domain names were confusingly similar to Bill Clinton’s common law marks and were not used for a bona fide use, but that the domain names were not registered and used in bad faith.
With regards to bona fide use, the arbitrator said that merely forwarding a domain name isn’t enough to show bona fide use. The arbitrator wrote that the respondent didn’t even bother to set up a critical site or parody. Which is why I was somewhat surprised when the arbitrator decided that forwarding the site to the republican party’s web site was not evidence of bad faith:
The Panelist simply cannot find bad faith in this case. None of the elements of bad faith are met. The Respondent’s conduct in registering, acquiring and utilizing these domain names is simply not within the UDRP definition of bad faith. The facts alleged by Complainant are simply unpersuasive. Evidence of bad faith (i) requires a showing that the names were registered or acquired for the purpose of selling or transferring the name to the mark holder; (ii) in order to prevent the mark holder from registering the domain; (iii) to disrupt a competitor’s business; or (iv) to attract Internet users by confusing them. The only one of these that could possibly apply is (ii), which requires a showing of a pattern of conduct. While Respondent’s conduct in registering the names of politicians does reflect a pattern, Respondent has adequately rebutted any inference of bad faith.
One of the more amusing claims made by Clinton was that the domains forwarding to the RNC may confuse internet users into thinking that he had become a Republican:
In fact, Complainant suggests in its Additional Submission that an Internet user might be confused and think that former President Clinton had become a Republican. After all, says Complainant, Senator Arlen Spector recently left the Republican Party and became a Democrat.
This case was truly a roll of the dice. Run this case through multiple panelists and you would get varying answers.
jp says
So what is wrong with just forwarding a domain? How can that not constitute use? I’m sure that ToysRus is getting some value out of forwarding toys.com to their site. Ask ToysRus if they feel as though toys.com as been put “in use” for their company.
Kind of a strange blanket statement. Especially since it involves politics and not commerce. I’m guessing the Respondant is a Republican so he’s probably getting his money’s worth out of the domain. Anyway funny that slick willy wasn’t quite slick enough this time.
Tim Davids says
If you “put” an identical site up instead of forwarding is it then use?
These things should be used as aptitude tests 🙂
Barefoot says
Why is forwarding not considered a bona fide use? For that matter, why is parking a domain not consistently considered a bona fide use?
The use of a domain – whether forwarded, parked, modestly built (e.g. “Hello World”), “Under Construction”, or any level of development – should be left up to the registrant. A registrant shouldn’t have to worry about possibly losing his domain simply for not putting it to use to the satisfaction of everyone else.
Even if you aren’t using the domain at all (e.g. 404 error) you shouldn’t have to worry about the possibility of losing it. You’ve paid the registration fee, so why can’t you enjoy the freedom of doing what you want with the domain for the duration of your registration term?
DS says
If the domain had been showing ads containing Republican party links the case would be bad faith. But since the defendant is only forwarding to the republican party page it is legitamate use.
What I think happened was one of the idea balls from the “idea tank” made the UDRP manatees stop working. see: http://www.lemonzoo.com/funny_videos/15684/South_Park___How_Family_Guy_is_made.html
Enrico S. says
I did a complete analysis of this decision here.
http://tinyurl.com/quabm9
It was wrongly decided, in my estimation. How would you like it if someone registered your name and pointed it to an abortion, or anti-abortion, web site seeking to raise money? Would people think you were endorsing the site to which you were re-directing? Of course. Is the RNC web site commercial? Of course it is. Was the registrant trying to leverage Clinton’s fame for his own purposes and to cause confusion? Of course.
DS: You are right that advertisements on the site would have been a clincher. But the RNC web site ids designed to raise money. It is really the same thing.
I think this one is out of bounds, a bad decision and simply causes confusion among domainers about what business models are risky, or not.
Andrew Allemann says
Enrico – regardless of whether or not the decision was right, I could see this going differently with another panelist. That’s why this is so frustrating — inconsistency.
Luz Helena Villamil says
As a domain name panelist, I totally disagree with the decision taken in the present case. I would see prima facie bad faith in anyone who seeks registration of a the domain name presidentbillclinton.com since ¿what kind of clean interest could anyone claim in such domain name? ¿What legitimate interest could anyone have in using President’s Clinton name? No doubt the registrant will use President’s Clinton notoriety in its own benefit. what a shame!