; COMPLAINT TRANSMITTAL COVERSHEET
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

COMPLAINT TRANSMITTAL COVERSHEET

VIEWS: 15 PAGES: 11

  • pg 1
									                COMPLAINT TRANSMITTAL COVERSHEET

Attached is a Complaint that has been filed against you with the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) pursuant to the
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy) approved by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, 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).

The Policy is incorporated by reference into your Registration Agreement with the
Registrar(s) of your domain name(s), in accordance with which you are required to submit to
a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a Complainant)
submits a complaint to a dispute resolution service provider, such as the Center, concerning a
domain name that you have registered. You will find the name and contact details of the
Complainant, as well as the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the Complaint in the
document that accompanies this Coversheet.

You have no duty to act at this time. Once the Center has checked the Complaint to
determine that it satisfies the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the
Supplemental Rules, it will forward an official copy of the Complaint to you. You will then
have 20 calendar days within which to submit a Response to the Complaint in accordance
with the Rules and Supplemental Rules to the Center and the Complainant. You may
represent yourself or seek the assistance of legal counsel to represent you in the
administrative proceeding.

•   The Policy can be found at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rules/

•   The Rules can be found at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rules/

•   The Supplemental Rules, as well as other information concerning the resolution of
    domain name disputes can be found at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rules/

•   A model Response can be found at
    http://www.wipoint/amc/en/domains/respondent/index.html

Alternatively, you may contact the Center to obtain any of the above documents. The Center
can be contacted in Geneva, Switzerland by telephone at +41 22 338 8247, by fax at +41 22
740 3700 or by e-mail at domain disputes @wipo.int.

You are kindly requested to contact the Center to provide the contact details to which you
would like (a) the official version of the Complaint and (b) other communications in the
administrative proceeding to be sent.

A copy of this Complaint has also been sent to the Registrar(s) with which the domain
name(s) that is/are the subject of the Complaint is/are registered.

By submitting this Complaint to the Center the Complainant hereby agrees to abide and be
bound by the provisions of the Policy, Rules and Supplemental Rules.
                                         Before the:


                WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION
                    ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER



Susan Scheff
1520 Harbour Side Drive
Weston, FL 33326

(Complainant)

-v-                                       Disputed Domain Name:

Michael Crawford
52 Rue Rennequin, Apt. #2
Slippery Rock, PA 75017
                                          <sueschefftruth.com>
(Respondent)




                                      COMPLAINT
                                     (Rules, para. 3(b))


                                      I. Introduction

[L] This Complaint is hereby submitted for decision in accordance with the Uniform
      Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), approved by the Internet
      Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, the
      Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), approved by
      ICANN on October 24, 1999 and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain
      Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).


                                      II. The Parties


                                  A. The Complainant
                               (Rules, para. 3(b)(ii) and (iii))

[2.] The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Susan Scheff, as an Individual.



                                              2
[3.] The Complainant's contact details are:
           Address:	          1520 Harbour Side Dr., Weston, FL 33326
           Telephone:	        (954) 349-7260
           Fax:	             n/a
           E-mail •	sue.scheff@gmail.com


[4.] The Complainant's authorized representative in this administrative proceeding is:
     Alejandro J. Fernandez, Esq.


           Address:	          100 N. Tampa St., Suite 3500
                             Tampa, FL 33602
           Telephone:	        (813) 225-3020
           Fax:	              (813) 225-3039
           E-mail •	afernandez@broadandcassel.com


[5.] The Complainant's preferred method of communications directed to the Complainant in
     this administrative proceeding is:


           Electronic-only material
           Method: e-mail
           Address: afernandez@broadandcassel.com
           Contact: Alejandro J. Fernandez


           Material including hardcopy
           Method: Courier
           Address: 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 3500
                         Tampa, FL 33602


                                      B. The Respondent
                                      (Rules, para. 3(b)(v))

[6.] According to the concerned registrar (Tucows, Inc.) WHOIS database, the Respondent
     in this administrative proceeding is Michael Crawford (alternative known alias,



                                                3
     "Psyborgue"). A copy of the printout of the database search conducted on July 31,
     2008 is provided as Annex 1.


[7.] All information known to the Complainant regarding how to contact the Respondent is
     as follows. Complainant has reason to believe that the Complainant actually resides in
     Paris, France, not Slippery Rock, PA as erroneously set forth in the WHOIS database.


           Address:	          52 Rue Rennequin, Apt. 2
                              Slippery Rock, PA 75017
           Address:	          52 Rue Rennequin, Apt. 2
                              Paris, FRANCE 75017
           Telephone:	        (571) 277-5341
           Fax:	              n/a
           E-mail •	psyborgue@gmail.com


                            III. The Domain Name and Registrar
                                 (Rules, para. 3(b)(vi) and (vii))

[8.] This dispute concerns the domain name identified below:


     <sueschefftruth.com>


[9.] The registrar with which the domain name is registered is:


     Registrar: Tucows, Inc.
     Address: 96 Mowat Ave.,
                   Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
                   Canada



               IV. Jurisdictional Basis for the Administrative Proceeding
                                (Rules, paras. 3(a), 3(b)(xv)

[10.] This dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has
     jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The registration agreement, pursuant to which the
     domain name that is the subject of this Complaint is registered, incorporates the Policy.


                                               4
     The domain name at issue was registered August 7, 2007 in Canada, and was
     transferred to Respondent on July 16, 2008. Sections 8 and 9 of the registration
     agreement make the Policy applicable to the domain name In addition, Section 26 of
     the registration agreement states that the registration agreement will be "governed by
     and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the Federal
     laws of Canada applicable therein...." A true and correct copy of the domain name
     dispute policy that applies to the domain name in question is provided as Annex 2 to
     this Complaint, as found by Complainant at
     http://resellers.tucows.com/contracts/tld/exhibita.



                              V. Factual and Legal Grounds
                          (Policy, paras. 4(a), (b), (c); Rules, para. 3)


[11.] This Complaint is based on the following grounds:


A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
     mark in which the Complainant has rights;
     (Policy, para. 4(a)(i), Rules, paras. 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))


       The service marks on which the Complaint is based are SUE SCHEFF (Annex 3) and
WWW.SUESCHEFF.COM (Annex 4) (collectively, "the SUE SCHEFF marks"). (Rules,
para. 3(b)(viii)) Since 2001, the Complainant, Sue Scheff, has used the SUE SCHEFF
marks to provide "[i]nformation about parenting topics, namely, drug and alcohol
awareness." In addition, the Complainant has registered and uses the domain name
<suescheff.com> in connection with offering consulting services, the Complainant's books,
and other forms of counsel. The Complainant owns all rights to the SUE SCHEFF marks
and the domain name <suescheff.com>.
       The Complainant, Sue Scheff, is a nationally known, highly regarded parent advocate
and author who helps parents struggling with troubled teens. More specifically, the
Complainant assists parents of troubled teens research and identify programs and schools
that can assist their troubled teens in getting back on track to a healthy, productive lifestyle.
The assistance provided by the Complainant is desperately needed in an industry fraught
with fraud, deception, and large amounts of untruthful information.



                                                 5
       As a result of the truthful and insightful guidance provided under the SUE SCHEFF
marks, the Complainant has received a large amount of positive exposure and media
attention. She has been featured on numerous prominent network shows and publications,
including the BBC, NPR, 20/20, Fox News Channel, CBC Television, Rachel Ray,
Newsweek, and Lifetime Television for Women, among others. Such extensive exposure
and media attention has created a great deal of goodwill and widespread recognition of the
 SUE SCHEFF marks. As a result, the SUE SCHEFF marks are famous.
       The domain name <sueschefftruth.com> is confusingly similar to the SUE SCHEFF
marks. It incorporates the SUE SCHEFF marks in their entirety, while providing no
indication that the site is devoted to disparaging Sue Scheff and others in the same industry.
Rather, the addition of the term "truth" to the <sueschefftruth.com > domain name is
calculated to confuse and mislead Internet users to believe that the web site is sponsored by
the Complainant. Indeed, since the SUE SCHEFF marks are often used in revealing truth
about fraud in the troubled teen industry, use of the term "truth" in the domain name is
particularly confusing to Internet users. As a result of the misleading domain name
<sueschefftruth.com>, Internet users are lured to the web site believing that it is somehow
 sponsored by the Complainant. Additionally, the likelihood of confusion is made worse by
the fact that the <sueschefftruth.com> domain name appears as the second result in a
Google® search for "Sue Scheff." (Annex 5)
       Accordingly, there is little doubt that the incorporation of the SUE SCHEFF marks in
the domain name <sueschefftruth.com> results in a likelihood of confusion, and thus meets
the requirement of Rules, para. 3(b)(ix)(1).


B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
     name;
      (Policy, para. 4(a)(ii), Rules, para. 3(b)(ix)(2))


       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
<sueschefftruth.com>. The Respondent has never used the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice to him of this
dispute. The Respondent has never been known by the domain name, and has not acquired
trademark or service mark rights in the SUE SCHEFF marks, which are registered by the
Complainant.



                                                  6
         The Respondent is not making a legitimate, non-commercial, or fair use of the domain
name without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers. UDRP Panels
have previously held that a Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a
domain name simply because the web site contains criticism about a trademark holder. See
Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Keith, Case No. D2000-0299, (WIPO June 9, 2000) (holding
that Respondent's right to express views did not translate into a right to use Complainant's
trademark in Respondent's domain name); see also, Infinity Broadcasting Corp. v. Joey
Boots Productions, Case No. D2001-0228, decided May 15, 2001 ("while Respondent is free
to express its opinion about Complainant... Respondent cannot use the disputed domain
name to confuse Internet users about the sponsorship of the website or to attract people to its
cause through confusion."); Prem Rawat Found. v. Leason, File No. FA0401000231883
(NAF March 27, 2004) ("while the content of Respondent's website may enjoy First
Amendment protection, such protection does not spawn rights or legitimate interests with
respect to a domain name which is confusingly similar to another's trademark.").
         UDRP Panels applying United States law generally acknowledge that there is no clear
consensus regarding criticism and domain names 1 Nevertheless, in the present case, the
Monty decision is instructive and on point. In Monty, while the "Panel [did] not dispute
Respondent's right to establish and maintain a web site critical of Complainant," it made
clear that rights to criticize the Complainant did not give the Respondent the right to identify
itself as the Complainant. Moreover, the Monty Panel found that use of a domain name for
criticism "[did] not insulate Respondent from the fact that it [was] directly and indirectly
offering products for sale on its web site or at web sites hyperlinked to its site."


         1 There is a clear consensus in the vast majority of countries that a domain name holder is not entitled
to a domain name simply because the web site is dedicated to criticizing others. This includes France, where the
Respondent resides. See, Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., Case No. D2000-0020, (WIPO
March 14, 2000) ("Of course, the issue is "not... the freedom of speech and expression but the mere choice of
the domain name used to exercise this inalienable freedom of speech and expression."); see also, Grupo Picking
Pack, S.A. v. Prospero Moran, Case No. D2000-1220 (WIPO December 18, 2000) (transferring domain name
based on Spanish case law rejecting free speech argument for putative criticism site); Skattedirectoratet v.
Eivind Nag, Case No. D2000-1314 (WIPO December 18, 2000) (in case involving Norwegian parties, stating
that while "it is, in principle, legitimate to operate a domain name for the purposes of lawful criticism of a
trademark owner . . .. this right [does not] extend[] to occupying a domain name identical to a sign identifying a
trademark owner"); British Nuclear Fuels Plc v. Greenpeace International, Case No. D2001-1318 (WIPO
January 10, 2002) (in case involving English and Dutch parties, held that the right to free speech to criticize
differs from right to use trademark as domain name).



                                                          7
         More specifically, in Monty, the Respondent used a domain name that incorporated a
famous mark (the Complainant's name) That famous mark attracted Internet users to a web
site critical of the Complainant. In addition to the critical content, the web site also directed
Internet users to a separate site where books were sold. Funds from book purchases were
purportedly used for charitable purposes.
       As in the Monty case, in this case the Respondent uses a domain name incorporating
the Complainant's famous marks to attract Internet users to Respondent's web site. At the
Respondent's web site, they are confronted with disparaging statements about the
Complainant and others. 2 The Respondent's web site does not stop there, however. Rather,
the web site directs Internet users to an Amazon Associate Store selling products completely
unrelated to the web site or the Complainant. The Respondent also commercially exploits the
disputed domain name by providing a supposed "donation" shopping cart. Revenues from
both the Amazon Associate store and the "donation" cart are purportedly used to support the
web site. But there is no evidence that revenues from these sources do anything other than
fill the pockets of the Respondent at the Complainant's expense.
         In sum, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
<sueschefftruth.com> domain name This is because the Respondent uses a disputed domain
name likely to cause consumer confusion for dual purposes—non bona fide criticism (in this
case amounting to defamation) coupled with commercial purposes (hosting an Amazon
Associate Store and "donation" cart).


C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
       (Policy, paras. 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, para. 3(b)(ix)(3))


         The Respondent registered and is using the <sueschefftruth.com > domain name in
bad faith. Specifically, the Respondent intentionally attracts for commercial gain Internet
users to the Respondent's web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
Respondent's web site.
         The Monty case is again instructive. In it, the Panel noted that Internet users entering
the web site at issue would eventually become aware that the source of the web site was not

2 The Complainant contends that the disparaging content found at the <sueschefftruth.com > domain name
amounts to defamation, but recognizes that the merits of its defamation contentions are outside the scope of this




                                                        8
the Complainant. Nevertheless, the Panel held that 1) commercial benefit may well accrue to
the Respondent if the products it offered for sale (directly or indirectly) were purchased by
those visiting the web site; and 2) commercial harm may well be suffered by the Complainant
if Internet users abandoned their efforts to reach the Complainant's web site. Id. As a result,
the Panel determined that the Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using the
disputed domain name
         Here, the Respondent is likewise intent on benefiting from the initial interest
confusion caused by the <sueschefftruth.com> domain name Because of the initial interest
confusion, the Respondent benefits from products sold through the Amazon Associate store,
as well as so-called "donations" to the shopping cart. 3 Even worse, the Complainant suffers
commercial harm from users abandoning their efforts to seek out the Complainant after being
initially confused by the <sueschefftruth.com > domain name, and later misled by the content
of the web pages accessible through that domain name
         The preceding facts make clear that the Respondent registered and is using the
domain name <sueschefftruth.com> in bad faith.

                                        VI. Remedies Requested
                                           (Rules, para. 3(b)(x))

[12.] In accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, for the reasons described in Section V
       above, the Complainant requests the Administrative Panel appointed in this
       administrative proceeding issue a decision that the <sueschefftruth.com > domain name
       be transferred to the Complainant.

                                       VII. Administrative Panel
                                          (Rules, para. 3(b)(iv))

[13.] The Complainant elects to have the dispute decided by a single-member Administrative
       Panel.




UDRP action. In no event, however, does the Complainant concede that such disparaging commentary is bona
fide criticism.
 3
   n.b. The Monty Panel concluded that use of financial gains from the web site for charitable purposes did not
 alter its finding of bad faith. Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Keith, Case No. D2000-0299, decided June 9, 2000.


                                                        9
                                  VIII. Mutual Jurisdiction
                                    (Rules, para. 3(b)(xiii))

[14.] In accordance with Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules, the Complainant will submit, with
     respect to any challenges that may be made by the Respondent to a decision by the
     Administrative Panel to transfer or cancel the domain name that is the subject of this
     Complaint, to the jurisdiction of the courts at the location of the principal office of the
     concerned registrar.

                                IX. Other Legal Proceedings
                                    (Rules, para. 3(b)(xi))

[15.] The Complainant is not aware of any other concurrent legal proceedings related to the
     <sueschefftruth.com> domain name


                                      X. Communications
                 (Rules, paras. 2(b), 3(b)(xii); Supplemental Rules, paras. 3, 4)

[16.] A copy of this Complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by the
     Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Respondent on July 31, 2008
     by email.


[17.] A copy of this Complaint, has been sent or transmitted to the concerned registrar on
     July 31, 2008 by email and mail at:
           Tucows Inc.
           96 Mowat Avenue
           Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
           Canada

[18.] This Complaint is submitted to the Center in electronic form (except to the extent not
     available for annexes), and in four (4) sets together with the original.

                                          XI. Payment
                        (Rules, para. 19; Supplemental Rules, Annex D)

[19.] As required by the Rules and Supplemental Rules, payment in the amount of USD
     $1,500.00 has been made by check.




                                                10
                                      XII. Certification
                                    (Rules, para. 3(b)(xiv))

[20.]The Complainant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the
     domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the domain
     name holder and waives all such claims and remedies against (a) the WIPO Arbitration
     and Mediation Center and Panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b)
     the concerned registrar, (c) the registry administrator, (d) the Internet Corporation for
     Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and
     agents.


[21.] The Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best
      of the Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not
      being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in
      this Complaint are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists
      or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.

                                                                                lly s 'Alined,
                                                                         Respec /




                                                                         Al	     ro . Fernandez

Date: qt-1//c4




                                               11

								
To top