Previous Politech messages: "Public Citizen will defend SavageStupidity.com in lawsuit" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04813.html "Radio host Michael Savage nastygrams SavageStupidity.com" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04691.html --- From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> To: "Paul Levy" <PLEVYat_private> Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> Subject: Fw: DECISION - Talk Radio Network, Inc. v Thomas Leavitt aka Leavitt Enterprises, FA0304000155182 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:38:47 -0700 This turned out to be a simple case. We won. SavageStupidity.com stays on the air, bigger, better and bolder than ever! :) Regards, Thomas Leavitt The Panel finds that the <savagestupidity.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the disputed domain name includes the term "stupidity" after Complainant's mark. Internet users would not confuse Respondent's domain name with Complainant's mark because the addition of the term "stupidity" indicates that the disputed domain name has no affiliation with Complainant's mark. See Robo Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2000) (noting that using a negative domain name for the purposes of criticism, such as <walmartcanadasucks.com>, does not create confusion with the service mark of Complainant); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Parisi, D2000-1015 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2001) (finding that "common sense and a reading of the plain language of the Policy support the view that a domain name combining a trademark with the word "sucks" or other such language clearly indicates that the domain name is not affiliated with the trademark owner and therefore <lockheedmartinsucks.com> and <lockheedsucks.com> cannot be considered confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN). <P> The Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the <savagestupidity.com> domain name is comprised of generic terms "savage" and "stupidity." See Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, FA 96364 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2001) (finding that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where "Respondent has persuasively shown that the domain name is comprised of generic and/or descriptive terms, and, in any event, is not exclusively associated with Complainant's business"); see also Zero Int'l Holding v. Beyonet Servs., D2000-0161 (WIPO May 12, 2000) (stating that "[c]ommon words and descriptive terms are legitimately subject to registration as domain names on a 'first-come, first-served' basis"). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lewis, Steve" <SLEWIS@arb-forum.com> To: <thomasleavittat_private>; <wkaneat_private> Cc: <udrpat_private>; <rtat_private>; <udrpat_private> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:28 AM Subject: DECISION - Talk Radio Network, Inc. v Thomas Leavitt aka Leavitt Enterprises, FA0304000155182 Attached is a copy of the decision from the Panel in the above referenced case. Mutual Jurisdiction: Location of the Registrar <<Notice of Decision.doc>> <<savagestupidity.com DECISION.DOC>> Steve Lewis Case Coordinator National Arbitration Forum slewis@arb-forum.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 19:44:52 PDT