Case Details for WIPO Case D2004-0221

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case Number	D2004-0221
Domain name(s)	charlierapierchat.com charlierapier.com
Complainant	Charles Rapier
Respondent	Dark Moon Management
Panelist	Abbott, Frederick M.
Decision Date	14-06-2004
Decision	Complaint denied

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Charles Rapier v. Dark Moon Management

Case No. D2004-0221

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Charles Rapier, of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Bracewell & Patterson, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Dark Moon Management, of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, of United States of America, represented by Krista J. Balekian.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <charlierapierchat.com> and <charlierapier.com> are registered with Go Daddy Software

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 22, 2004. On March 23, 2004, the Center transmitted by email to Go Daddy Software a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On March 23, 2004, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 27, 2004. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 April 29, 2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 19, 2004. The Response was filed with the Center on May 19/21, 2004.¹

By email of May 25, 2004, Complainant transmitted a Reply to Response to the Center and Respondent. By email of May 25, 2004, Respondent transmitted a Response to Reply to Response to the Center and Complainant. The parties were notified by the Center that the Panel to be appointed would have discretion whether to accept and consider the supplemental filings.

The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2004. 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.

By email of June 10, 2004, the Center advised the parties that the Panel would forward its decision by June 14, 2004.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a musician who performs from time to time at venues in the Dallas, Texas and surrounding area. He has on a limited…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Charles Rapier v Dark Moon Management

Details

AGLC: Charles Rapier v. Dark Moon Management WIPO Case No. D2004-0221
Case: WIPO Case No. D2004-0221
Decision Date: 14-06-2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Charles Rapier, a musician from Dallas, Texas, filed a complaint against Dark Moon Management, a marketing and promotion company also based in Dallas, under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) concerning the domain names charlierapier.com and charlierapierchat.com. Rapier alleged that Dark Moon Management had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and that their registration and use constituted bad faith. Additionally, he claimed that the domain names were confusingly similar to his service mark, "CHARLIE RAPIER," and that they were being used to tarnish his reputation. Dark Moon Management argued that it had registered the domain names with Rapier's consent and that the sites were being used for legitimate purposes, such as promoting Rapier's career and maintaining a fan website.

The key legal issues in the case were whether Rapier had established rights in the service mark "CHARLIE RAPIER," whether Dark Moon Management had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and whether the domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The Panel found that Rapier had not established that his service mark "CHARLIE RAPIER" had acquired secondary meaning and was distinctive enough to be protected under the UDRP. As a result, the Panel concluded that Rapier had not met the threshold requirement to proceed with the complaint. Consequently, the Panel denied the complaint and did not find Dark Moon Management's actions to constitute reverse domain name hijacking.

In conclusion, the Panel ruled in favour of Dark Moon Management and rejected Charles Rapier's complaint. The domain names charlierapier.com and charlierapierchat.com were not transferred to Rapier, as he failed to prove the necessary elements under the UDRP. The Panel also dismissed the claim of reverse domain name hijacking made by Dark Moon Management.

Orders