WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fox News Network, LLC v. Shannon Bream, Andrew Kurtser Case No. D2010-0914 1. The Parties
Complainant is Fox News Network, LLC, United States of America, represented internally.
Respondent is Shannon Bream, Andrew Kurtser, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2010. On June 4, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 7, 2010, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 9, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 29, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on July 1, 2010.
The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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
Complainant is Fox News Network, LLC, the number-one rated national cable news channel in the United States of America (“U.S”). Shannon Bream is an on-air correspondent for Complainant, who, due to the national nature of Complainant's showings, is seen by viewers around the country. Ms. Bream obtained a law degree before becoming a reporter, and she now reports primarily on the United States Supreme Court and other issues involving the U.S. capital. She has reported for Complainant since 2007, at which time she assigned all of her rights of publicity in her capacity as reporter to Complainant.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 26, 2010. Although Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the name “Shannon Bream,” registrant has no affiliation with Complainant or with reporter Shannon Bream. Shortly after registering the disputed domain name, Respondent linked the disputed domain name to a website “” that contains inappropriate and pornographic content, unaffiliated with Complainant or Complainant's services. Complainant has not authorized these links, nor the use of its right of publicity to the “Shannon Bream” name and mark therewith. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's name and trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name consists completely and solely of the personal name of a legal reporter who is an on-air correspondent for the number-one rated cable television news channel in the United States. Complainant owns Ms. Bream's rights of publicity in this capacity by assignment.
Under similar circumstances, prior UDRP panels have found domain names to be “identical or confusingly similar” to names of media personalities that are, as one panel described it, “commercially exploited.” See, for example, Fox New Network, LLC v. Bill Orielly,WIPO Case No. D2004-0464 (transferring ); Larry King v. Alberta Hot Rods,WIPO Case No. D2005-0570 (transferring ); Maria Bartiromo v. “Maria Bartiromo” and Dave Walton,WIPO Case No. D2007-0242 (transferring ).
This Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph (4)(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
Respondent did not reply to the Complaint, however, and no evidence has been presented to this Panel that might support a claim of Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Rather, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel's decision, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website, “”>, that is unaffiliated with Complainant or Complainant's services, presumably for the benefit of Respondent.
Therefore, this Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent's lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that domain names were registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph (4)(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent's] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the] web site or location.” As noted in Section 4 of this Panel's decision, Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to a website, “”. that contains inappropriate and pornographic content, unaffiliated with Complainant or Complainant's services. Complainant has not authorized these links, nor the use of its right of publicity to the “Shannon Bream” name and mark therewith. In so doing, Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant's trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent's own commercial gain. This evidences bad faith by Respondent. Furthermore, as in the case Fox New Network, LLC v. Bill Orielly,WIPO Case No. D2004-0464 (transferring ), this Panel finds bad faith by Respondent in registering the disputed domain name under the false pretense of the name “Shannon Bream,” when in fact the person (and on-air reporter) Shannon Bream did not license Respondent to do so.
Therefore, this Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy