Complainant is Kira Reed Lorsch of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by McKee, Voorhees & Sease P.L.C., United States of America.
The Respondent is K c/o Moniker Privacy Services and Alexander Porterfield of Pompano Beach, Florida, United States of America and Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America, respectively. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2010. On May 27, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 2010, Moniker Online Services, LLC 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 1, 2010. The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 2, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 22, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 23, 2010.
The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2010. 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. 4. Factual Background
Kira Reed is an actress, television host, writer and producer. She has appeared or starred in over seventy (70) television shows and feature films and she has been the host for a variety of projects.
Her career has also included writing and producing, including such works as: Naked Happy Girls: San Francisco 69 Sexy Things 2 Do Before You Die, and E!, Eleventh Day Entertainment. Currently, she also serves as the spokesperson for MyMedicalR, Inc. and is prominently featured on several of their web sites, including at “www.mymedicalr”.
Ms. Reed is also a philanthropist who works closely with her husband in connection with the Robert H. Lorsch Foundation Trust. Through the long and continuous use of her name in connection with all of these projects since at least as early as 1992, Ms. Reed also uses her KIRA REED name prominently on her web site, “”, which has existed since at least as early as 2001. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which she has common law trademark rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name is used for commercial gain to mislead Internet users to an adult entertainment site that is not authorized or affiliated with Complainant. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Kira Reed has established common law trademark rights in the name KIRA REED in connection with entertainment services, based on long and continuous use of the name for such services as evidenced by the various film and television productions bearing her name, her services as an advertising spokesperson, her web site, and various other uses. The name appears to be unusual and distinctive in its field.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is identical in material part to Complainant’s mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent does not appear to be known by the name Kira Reed or to be authorized by Complainant to use the name. The disputed domain name is not being used for a noncommercial good faith purpose, but instead for a commercial purpose that is not legitimately connected to Complainant. Although Respondent appears to be offering adult entertainment services at its website, a deliberately infringing use of another’s mark does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. As stated in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “M”,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847:
“We find instead that name was selected and used by [r]espondent with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users to [r]espondent’s web site by trading on the fame of Complainant’s mark. We see no other plausible explanation for [r]espondent’s conduct and conclude that use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a “bona fide” offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a [r]espondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.”
The same conclusion obtains here, and we therefore find that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It appears that the disputed domain name was deliberately used for commercial gain based on confusion or mistake with Complainant’s mark. Complainant’s name and mark is being used to lead Internet users to a site that offers explicit photographs and videos. The site is not approved or authorized by Complainant and does not specifically relate to her. In any event, persons seeking information or material relating to Complainant will be misled in a manner that is deceptive and contrary to Complainant’s right to control the use of her name and mark.
Accordingly, we find that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Mark Partridge
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 4, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy