�ݺ�ߣ


The Complainant is Madonna Ciccone, an
individual professionally known as
Madonna.
The Respondent is "Madonna.com," the
registrant for the disputed domain name,
located in New York, New York, U.S.A. or
Dan Parisi, the listed contact for the domain
name.
The Parties


The disputed domain name is
madonna.com.
The registrar is Network Solutions,
Inc., 505 Huntmar Park Drive,
Herndon, Virginia 20170, U.S.A.
The Domain Name(s)
and Registrar(s)


This action was brought in accordance
with the ICANN Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy, dated
October 24, 1999 ("the Policy") and the
ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy, dated
October 24, 1999
Procedural History

Complainant is the well-known entertainer Madonna. She is the
owner of U.S. Trademark Registrations for the mark MADONNA
for entertainment services and related goods (Reg. No. 1,473,554
and 1,463,601). She has used her name and mark MADONNA
professionally for entertainment services since 1979. Complainant’s
music and other entertainment endeavors have often been
controversial for featuring explicit sexual content. In addition,
nude photographs of Madonna have appeared in Penthouse
magazine, and Complainant has published a coffee-table book
entitled "Sex" featuring sexually explicit photographs and text.

• Respondent is in the business of developing web sites.
• In 29, 1998, Respondent, through its business
Whitehouse.com, Inc., purchased the registration for the
disputed domain name from Pro Domains for $20,000.
• On June 4, 1998, Respondent registered MADONNA as a
trademark in Tunisia.
• On or about June 8, 1998, Respondent began operating an
"adult entertainment portal web site." The web site featured
sexually explicit photographs and text, and contained a notice
stating "Madonna.com is not affiliated or endorsed by the
Catholic Church, Madonna College, Madonna Hospital or
Madonna the singer."

• By March 4, 1999, it appears that Respondent
removed the explicit sexual content from the web
site. By May 31, 1999, it appears that the site merely
contained the above notice, the disputed domain
name and the statement "Coming soon Madonna
Gaming and Sportsbook."
• On June 9, 1999, Complainant, through her
attorneys, objected to Respondent’s use of the
Madonna.com domain name. On June 14, 1999,
Respondent through its counsel stated: He is in the
process of donating his registration for the domain
name.

• After Respondent’s receipt of Complainant’s
objection, it appears that Respondent had
communication with Madonna Rehabilitation
Hospital regarding the transfer of the domain name
to the Hospital. It further appears that Respondent
has not identified all of its communications on this
matter. Nevertheless, the transfer had not taken place
at the time this proceeding was commenced.
• By his own admission, Respondent has registered a
large number of other domain names, including
names that matched the trademarks of others. Other
domain names registered by Respondent include
<wallstreetjournal.com> and <edgaronline.com>.


Complainant
Complaint contends that the disputed domain name is
identical to the registered and common law trademark
MADONNA in which she owns rights. She further
contends that Respondent has no legitimate interest or
rights in the domain name. Finally, Complainant
contends that Respondent obtained and used the
disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet
users to a pornographic web site for commercial gain
based on confusion with Complainant’s name and mark.
Parties’ Contentions


Respondent
Respondent does not dispute that the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant’s trademark. Respondent, however,
claims that Complainant cannot show a lack of
legitimate interest in the domain name because
Respondent
(a) made demonstrable preparation to use the
domain name for a bona fide business purpose;
(b) holds a bona fide trademark in the word
MADONNA; and
(c) has attempted to make bona fide
noncommercial use of the name by donating it to the
Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital.


 Respondent also contends that it has not registered and used
the domain name in bad faith because
(a) there is no evidence that its primary motivation was to
sell the disputed domain name;
(b) the domain name was not registered with an intent to
prevent Complainant from using her mark as a domain name;
(c) respondent is not engaged in a pattern of registering
domain names to prevent others from doing so;
(d) the use of a disclaimer on the web site precludes a
finding that Respondent intentional seeks to attract users for
commercial gain based on confusion with Complainant’s mark;
and
(e) the use of a generic term to attract business is not bad
faith as a matter of law.
 Finally, Respondent claims that Complainant cannot
legitimately claim that she has already associated herself with
sexually explicit creative work.

For this case Paragraph 4(a) of the U.S.A Trademark
Policy directs that the complainant must prove each
of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the
respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the complainant
has rights; and,
(ii) that the respondent has no legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered
and used in bad faith.
Findings

Then we found:
Similarity of the Disputed Domain Name and
Complainant’s Mark: Respondent does not dispute that its
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
in which the Complainant has rights.
Lack of Rights or Legitimate Interests In Domain
Name: Complainant has presented evidence tending to show
that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the
domain name. Respondent’s claim of rights or legitimate
interests is not persuasive.
Firstly, Respondent contends that its use of the domain
name for an adult entertainment web site involved prior use of
the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services. Respondent has failed to provide a reasonable
explanation for the selection of Madonna as a domain name.

Lastly, Respondent claims that its offer to transfer
the domain name to the Madonna Hospital in Lincoln,
Nebraska, is a legitimate noncommercial use.
Respondent has failed to disclose the specifics of its
proposed arrangement with Madonna Hospital.
Bad Faith Registration and Use: The pleadings in
this case are consistent with Respondent's having
adopted <madonna.com> for the specific purpose of
trading off the name and reputation of the
Complainant, and Respondent has offered no
alternative explanation for his adoption of the name
despite his otherwise detailed and complete
submissions.


Under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, we find in favor
of the Complainant. The disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in
which Complainant has a right; Respondent lacks
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name;
and the domain name has been registered and used
in bad faith. Therefore, we decide that the disputed
domain name <madonna.com> should be
transferred to the Complainant.
Decision

�ݺ�ߣ

Madonna Ciccone v Madonna (Cyber Crime)

More Related Content

Madonna Ciccone v Madonna (Cyber Crime)