Complainant is Donald J. Trump of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, United States of America.
Respondent is Web-adviso of Brooklyn, New York, United States of America, represented internally.
The disputed domain names <trumpabudhabi.com>, <trumpbeijing.com>, <trumpindia.com>, and <trumpmumbai.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2010. On December 20, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On December 21, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 December 22, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 11, 2011, which was extended to January 17, 2011 by agreement between the Parties. The Response was filed with the Center on January 17, 2011. A supplemental filing was received from Complainant on January 21, 2011.
The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 26, 2011. 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.
Complainant, Donald Trump, is a well-known real estate developer, hotelier, author and television personality.
Complainant owns registrations for the TRUMP trademark in the United States, India, China and in other countries around the world. Through the widespread use of the TRUMP trademark in connection with his various businesses, Complainant’s TRUMP mark has become well-known and uniquely associated with Complainant.
Respondent registered the Domain Names with GoDaddy.com, Inc. on two dates: September 20, 2007 (<trumpbeijing.com>; <trumpindia.com>; <trumpmumbai.com>) and September 27, 2007 (<trumpabudhabi.com>).
Respondent is using the Domain Names in connection with a purported parody website.
Complainant states that he is one of the most well-known real estate developers, hoteliers, authors and television personalities in the world. His portfolio includes residential real estate, commercial real estate, golf courses, casinos, hotels, and other properties, spread across the United States and in locations around the world.
Complainant has provided evidence to show he has obtained trademark registrations in countries around the world in connection with his hotels, real estate and related goods and services. Complainant owns mark registrations in the United States, China and the UAE. Through widespread use of the TRUMP mark in connection with his various businesses and the expenditure of large sums in promoting the TRUMP brand on television, in print advertisements, on the Internet and in other media, Complainant claims his TRUMP mark has become uniquely associated with Complainant and his goods and services, and has attained considerable fame and widespread acclaim in the United States and throughout the world.
Complainant claims the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRUMP trademarks. The Domain Names consist of nothing more than Complainant’s registered mark and some combination of the geographic terms “Abu Dhabi,” “Mumbai,” “India” and “Beijing” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) extension. The addition of the geographical indicators to Complainant’s TRUMP trademark adds to rather than diminishes the likelihood of confusion because the addition of a place name to a trademark is a common method for indicating the location of a business enterprise identified by the mark.
Given the reputation and renown of Complainant’s TRUMP mark, Complainant states that most Internet users who see the Domain Names are likely to immediately recognize Complainant’s mark, and assume that the Domain Names and the websites associated with them are owned, controlled or approved by Complainant. In addition, consumers and other third-parties who search the Internet for legitimate information on Complainant or about the businesses he owns and controls may be directed to the Internet addresses incorporating the Domain Names, creating a probability of confusion. Upon being redirected to Respondent’s website from the Domain Names, consumers would have reasonably believed that they are either Complainant’s websites or are somehow related to or approved by Complainant, when that is not the case.
Complainant contends Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish any legitimate interest in the Domain Names. Although Respondent has posted a disclaimer at the websites associated with each of the Domain Names claiming that the sites are meant as parody and news and information websites, Respondent’s actual use of the websites does not support any legitimate claim to the Domain Names. Instead, Respondent is a frequent cyber-squatter, having been found liable of cybersquatting by courts in the United States, including Webadviso v. Bank of America Corp., 2009 WL 5177997 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009), 2010 WL 521117 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010). By its own admission, Webadivso is a “‘domainer’ who seeks to acquire high value domain names and park them with domain parking service providers to generate pay-per-click revenue’ or to build websites.” The court opinion states that “Webadviso has a history of registering domain names that include well-known trademarks.”
Complainant states that Respondent has no rights in the TRUMP marks. Respondent was well aware of the fame of the TRUMP marks as it made use of the Domain Names and obviously hoped that its use of them would cause traffic to be directed to its website so that it could profit. There is no reason that Respondent can point to that would support its need to use the Domain Names.
Complainant maintains that Respondent has made clear its desire to profit from the registration of the Domain Names and has no legitimate interest in the Domain Names. Since Complainant’s adoption and extensive use of the TRUMP mark in 1997 predates Respondent’s first use of the Domain Names, the burden is on Respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant’s TRUMP marks. The Domain Names are not, nor could they be contended to be, the name or nickname of Respondent, nor are they in any other way identified with or related to any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent. Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Domain Names. The disclaimer posted at the websites associated with the Domain Names is insufficient to avoid consumer confusion. The confusion will already exist before it becomes clear to any visitor to the Domain Names that the sites purport to provide news and information along with parody videos of the Complainant.
Complainant urges that Respondent’s use of the TRUMP mark in the text of each of the Domain Names for the purposes stated in the disclaimer cannot and should not be considered a fair use. Nothing in any of the four Domain Names themselves indicates that the associated websites feature criticism of, news about or parodies relating to Complainant. Hence, the use of Complainant’s TRUMP mark in the Domain Names illegitimately diverts Internet traffic to Respondent’s sites. The sites themselves contain no original content, and appear to have been roughly assembled by Respondent in an attempt to conform to some misguided notion of fair use. Respondent’s use of the Domain Names demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate interest. Failing to disclose the lack of any relationship with Complainant at Respondent’s websites also fails any test for a bona fide use of the Domain Names incorporating Complainant’s TRUMP trademarks.
Complainant contends Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith. Complainant is one of the most recognizable individuals in the world, and his TRUMP marks enjoy international recognition. It is therefore inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s trademarks when he obtained the Domain Names. The fact that Respondent registered the confusingly similar Domain Names without authorization is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. Since Complainant’s marks are so well-known and Respondent has no rights, the only reason that Respondent could have for registering and using the Domain Names, consisting of nothing more than the TRUMP mark plus geographic terms, is that Respondent knew of Complainant’s marks and wanted to trade on Complainant’s renown to lure consumers to its websites. Even noncommercial websites can divert traffic meant for Complainant’s website and have a commercial impact on Complainant, evidencing bad faith. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks at the Domain Names is clear proof that Respondent was and is aware of the fame of the TRUMP marks.
By registering and using the Domain Names, Respondent has unfairly capitalized on the goodwill and fame of Complainant’s marks and improperly benefited financially in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), which provides relief for a trademark owner when “by using the domain name, [Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site…, by creating a likelihood of confusion [with Complainant’s marks] as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] web site… or of a product or service on [its] web site….” Here, Respondent has earned revenue directly by redirecting consumers to its websites, by its unauthorized use of Complainant’s TRUMP marks in its Domain Names, and otherwise profiting from the consumer confusion that is the inevitable result of Respondent’s misappropriation of Complainant’s marks.
In 2007, Complainant’s son, an Executive Vice President with The Trump Organization, announced plans to build TRUMP-branded hotels and luxury condominiums in Mumbai and Bangalore, India. News reports of Donald Trump Jr.’s visit to India were published as early as July 2, 2007. There have also been published reports of Complainant’s purported plans to begin another development project in Mumbai, India as recently as October 2010. In 2008, it was reported that Complainant was in talks with Hydra Properties to develop a mixed-use residential and hotel tower on Abu Dhabi’s Reem Island.
Respondent registered all four of the Domain Names on September 20, 2007, shortly after reports were published announcing Donald Trump Jr.’s planned speaking engagement in India, at a time when Complainant was preparing to or shortly after Complainant announced plans to begin construction of two properties in India and at least 12 years after Complainant first began using the TRUMP mark in the United States and a full year after Complainant first secured rights to the TRUMP mark in India.
Upon information and belief, Respondent is using the websites associated with each of the Domain Names for what it purports to be parody websites. In reality, however, none of the content posted at any of the three websites was developed for Respondent’s websites. All of the video “parodies” posted at Respondent’s websites were originally created by third-parties and posted at “www.youtube.com”. A link to each video was then posted at the infringing sites by the Administrator for each site. Although the postings at the websites claim that they were written by the Administrator, this only refers to the entries themselves (which contain no parody content), as all of the videos were created by third-parties for use at other online venues.
Complainant urges that Respondent registered the Domain Names to capitalize on Complainant’s fame and notoriety and to sell each of the Domain Names to Complainant at a profit. As stated by Respondent’s representative John Yung, in an email to Complainant’s counsel on November 8, 2010:
Webadviso agrees to negotiate with your organization in hopes of reaching a more mutually agreeable terms. Under the advisement from numerous internet professionals and legal sources, Webadviso believes the domain names, the large internet traffic from the site, and the development programming labor/work that has gone into building the site have significant value. We hope that your organization recognizes these attributes in your effort to negotiate with Webadviso.
Complainant offered to pay Respondent USD 100 to cover the transfer and registration costs for the Domain Names, but this offer was rejected by Respondent’s representative on November 4, 2010. By rejecting Complainant’s reasonable offer to pay the registration and transfer costs associated with the Domain Names and then requesting greater compensation for them, Respondent made clear that it seeks to unfairly profit from its improper registration of the Domain Names.
In view of the foregoing, Complainant concludes that it has met the requirements of the Policy by demonstrating not only its own legitimate interest in the TRUMP marks as evidenced by its use and registration of the marks, but also that Respondent has no legitimate interests in the marks and that Respondent’s sole basis for using and registering the Domain Names is to profit unlawfully from them.
Respondent is a “domainer” web development group that looks to acquire high-value and interesting domain names and initially park them with domain parking service providers (e.g., GoDaddy) to generate and maintain Internet traffic with pay-per-click revenue services while the website is under construction. The pay-per-click ad display is an example of the industry practice with GoDaddy’s new domain registration procedure. This is widely accepted as a way to “show something” to patrons of newly registered “under new construction” websites so as to not alienate Internet patrons with an “error 404 not found” page.
Respondent maintains that “trump” is a generic English word with official entries in leading dictionaries. Complainant has no exclusive right to use of the word “trump” because it is generic. There are over 17,000 registered domain names with “trump” in the prefix, suffix, or in some combination of the spelling of the domain names. According to Respondent, this shows that Complainant does not have rights to domain names where the English word “trump” is spelled in combination with an infinite number of other alphabet characters, words or numbers such as <trumpet.com> and <trumpon.com>. On this basis, Respondent claims rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names on a first-come, first-served basis. Respondent also refers to other words, such as “android,” which corresponds to Google’s mobile operating system product, to argue that Google’s rights in this word do not preclude others from registering domain names incorporating the “android” term.
Respondent asserts that from the day of registration of the Domain Names to the present, there is no legitimate trademark registration for the complete spelling of the Domain Names. Furthermore, Complainant has never owned or used the trademarks TRUMPMUMBAI, TRUMPMUMBAI.COM, TRUMPABUDHABI, TRUMPABUDHABI.COM, TRUMPBEIJING, TRUMPBEIJING.COM, TRUMPINDIA, or TRUMPINDIA.COM.
Respondent states that the Domain Names and their corresponding website contain the group work of a number of TV fanatics who have developed legitimate parody/satire fanworks all over the Internet. Since their works are well known on sites like YouTube, the group of fans and some “fanwork” authors, together with Respondent, decided to find a way to put together all their works on the website associated with the Domain Names with information, news and commentary in a Blog-content style. Respondent refutes Complainant’s point that the authors of the fanworks have no association with Respondent. On the contrary, Respondent is associated with all of the authors and they contact each other for ideas and new ways to promote each other’s “fanworks” of satire. Respondent admits that the News section of its website is an RSS feed from Google on real estate. Even so, Respondent never claimed its website to be provider of original news.
Respondent claims it is absurd to rely on Complainant’s assertion that Complainant is making plans to build “hotels and luxury condominiums in Mumbai and Bangalore, India” as justification for Complainant’s right to the Domain Names. Complainant’s Exhibit L, which was initially omitted from the materials sent with the Complaint, shows in the title and body of that article that Complainant “may” make plans in India, meaning it is not definite. Respondent maintains that these “may” or “might” or “in talks” articles are just hype. Further, Respondent argues that it is absurd to consider that the visit of Complainant’s son to a vacation spot in another country should entitle Complainant to that city’s or country’s domain name when the word “trump” is combined with it. To refute Complainant's statements in this regard, Respondent states that Complainant has provided no proof to show there are structures built or under construction in China (Beijing), India (Mumbai) or the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi) that bear or would bear the English word “trump”. Respondent also argues that the initial omission of Exhibit L of the Complaint was a conniving tactic by Complainant to handicap Respondent with incomplete materials.
Respondent states that Complainant’s characterization of the negotiations between the parties prior to filing the Complaint is misleading. In response to the letter from Complainant’s representative, Respondent declined “the ridiculous offer of $100 and $150 respectively.” After the letters, there were verbal negotiations in which Respondent never offered to sell or solicit a price for the Domain Names, but offered only “to negotiate with your organization in hopes of reaching a more mutually agreeable terms.” During the course of negotiations, Complainant’s legal representative said “Mr. Trump would rather spend millions to get your domains, so you would get nothing, NOTHING!” Respondent states that it never asked Complainant to sell the Domain Names at all.
While Respondent admits that its websites are haphazardly put together, it also urges that the meta-keywords and metadescriptions contained at the websites linked to the Domain Names will not mistakenly confuse any consumer searching legitimately for Complainant’s information. In addition, the style, design, and logo differences between Respondent's website and Complainant’s website will not confuse consumers that the Domain Names and associated websites have an official endorsement or sponsorship by Complainant.
Respondent claims that it has established a legitimate interest in the Domain Names in the area of “fan, parody and news,” as reflected through the use of the Domain Names to link to a site providing a mix of original and fan-produced parody, satire and commentary contents, and through the heading tagline and meta-tags. Respondent argues that the Domain Names are used in a legitimate, noncommercial way without the intent to mislead and divert consumers for commercial gain. The sites associated with the Domain Names have nothing to sell that would confuse the consumer.
Respondent also maintains that the case referenced by Complainant, Webadviso v. Bank of America Corp., is on appeal in the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, therefore, the district court decision referenced by Complainant should be disregarded.
Respondent argues that the Domain Names use the words “trumpbeijing,” “trumpindia,” “trumpmumbai” and “trumpabudhabi” for a parody/satire, commentary and information website with a mix of original and fanwork contents mainly about the show “The Apprentice”. There are statements on the site that “the content and site is NOT endorsed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and the shows ‘The Apprentice’/‘The Celebrity Apprentice’”. Respondent argues that the Domain Names do not “bait” or “hook” browsers or Internet users with any scripts or automated functions. Since Complainant has never actively advertised, promoted or registered to use the Domain Names, the Internet user will have to know the full URL address of the Domain Names, which would imply that the user has knowledge beforehand that Respondent’s site is a parody/satire site.
Finally, Respondent claims that it did not register or use the Domain Names in bad faith. The website associated with the Domain Names has a disclaimer in the metatags and contains meta-keywords and meta-descriptions tags with the respective values, “Fan, Parody and News” and “The content and the site is not endorsed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization or the shows ‘The Apprentice’/‘The Celebrity Apprentice’.” In addition, there's a tag-line in the Frontpage section that states “The content and sites is NOT endorsed by the Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and the shows ‘The Apprentice’/‘The Celebrity Apprentice’.” Respondent does not sell anything or put up ads or ask for donations on the website. There are no revenues earned. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent registered the Domain Names for the purposes of selling them to Complainant or a third-party.
As stated earlier, the Domain Names will not and cannot divert traffic meant for Complainant because Complainant has never been known by, or promoted, or registered to use the Domain Names and there is therefore no pre-existing Internet traffic. In addition, with the advancement of search engine technology and use of meta-tag keywords and descriptions, there is no evidence that search results for Complainant from top search engines is contaminated with search results for the sites linked to the Domain Names. In sum, Respondent submits that it has fulfilled the burden that the Domain Names were registered and are used in good faith for noncommercial purposes.
The burden for Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that Complainant owns registered trademark rights in its well-known TRUMP mark and that each of the Domain Names incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, along with a descriptive term referring to the geographic locations “Abu Dhabi,” “Mumbai,” “India” and “Beijing.”
Given that the Domain Names are not identical to Complainants’ marks, the question is whether they are confusingly similar. Respondent has argued that not only is the term “trump” a generic word, but so are the geographical terms that are combined with that term to form the Domain Names. Further, Respondent asserts that Complainant holds no trademark registrations for the complete spelling of the Domain Names. The Panel finds, however, that the addition of the geographical terms to the mark TRUMP “adds to rather than diminishes the likelihood of confusion” because “[t]he addition of a place name to a trademark…is a common method for indicating the location of a business enterprise identified by the trademark or service mark.” Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Dkal, WIPO Case No. D2003-0244; see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Domaincar, WIPO Case No. D2006-0136 (“[T]he geographical descriptors…actually increase” likelihood of confusion “because they relate directly to places where the Complainant has developed or might develop its core business through hotels and other leisure services”). The Panel finds that the potential for confusion is particularly high in this case because a substantial portion of Complainant’s business operations relate to real estate and hotel holdings in various geographical locations; hence geographical indicators in combination with Complainant’s TRUMP mark will increase the likelihood of confusion.
In addition, the disclaimer posted at the website associated with the Domain Names is insufficient to avoid confusion. The confusion will already exist before it becomes clear to any visitor that the sites purport to provide news and information along with parody videos of Complainant. Nothing in any of the four Domain Names themselves indicates that the associated websites feature criticism of, news about, or parodies relating to Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRUMP mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
A complainant is normally required to make out a prima facie case that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and that Respondent has been unable to rebut this showing. This finding is based on the following circumstances:
(1) There is no doubt that Respondent registered the Domain Names with Complainant’s well-known TRUMP trademark in mind. Respondent has acknowledged as much and the content of Respondent’s website confirms this finding, as Complainant and his television shows are specifically referenced. As discussed in the section devoted to bad faith below, the Panel believes that Respondent improperly targeted Complainant’s trademark.
(2) There is no indication in the record that Respondent is commonly known by any of the Domain Names or has ever acquired any trademark or service mark rights in any of them. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the TRUMP trademark in a domain name or otherwise.
(3) Although Respondent has posted a disclaimer on the website associated with the Domain Names claiming that the site is meant as a parody, news and information site, the Domain Names themselves do not suggest any of this. There is no reasonable explanation for why Respondent would choose the combination of the trademark TRUMP with certain geographic terms, if Respondent’s intention was to create a legitimate parody and information site. In fact, the Domain Names are not descriptive of the content of Respondent’s website, but instead pose a complete and unexplainable non-sequitur when compared to the site’s content. The Domain Names instead suggest that the website might be associated with one of Complainant’s properties in a particular location. The Panel believes that this was Respondent’s bad faith intention (to suggest an association to Complainant) when it registered the Domain Names.
(4) By its own admission, Webadivso is a “domainer” that seeks to acquire high value domain names in order to park them to generate pay-per-click revenue, and Complainant has submitted evidence that Respondent has a history of registering domain names that include well-known trademarks.
(5) The sites themselves contain little or no original content, and appear to have been haphazardly assembled by Respondent in an attempt to conform to a standard of bona fide use. Respondent’s use of the Domain Names demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate interest in the Domain Names.
Accordingly, once Complainant established its prima facie case, the burden was on Respondent to prove it has a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. The Panel determines that the circumstances referenced in paragraphs (1) through (5) above are sufficient to support a finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).
With Respondent’s lack of any right or legitimate interest in any of the Domain Names, the Panel finds that Respondent has exhibited conduct that fits into bad faith registration and use by (i) the opportunistic and intentional registration of the Domain Names to capitalize on Complainant’s fame as they contain Complainant’s TRUMP mark in its entirety plus a geographic indicator, and (ii) using the Domain Names in connection with a sham website as a means of frustrating Complainant until (iii) Respondent could carry out its intention to sell each of the Domain Names to Complainant for a profit.
As noted above, the Panel believes that Respondent registered the Domain Names while improperly targeting Complainant’s TRUMP trademark. There is no other reasonable explanation for why Respondent chose to register the particular Domain Names in dispute, which have no semantic connection to the putative purpose for which Respondent claims it established its website (i.e., parody, criticism, information and news). Instead, the Panel finds that the Domain Names were chosen in an attempt to obtain higher levels of potential Internet traffic through their suggestive association to Complainant’s TRUMP mark.
The Panel also finds that Respondent was using the Domain Names in bad faith with an intention to sell them to Complainant. As stated by Respondent’s representative in an email to Complainant’s counsel on November 8, 2010:
Webadviso agrees to negotiate with your organization in hopes of reaching a more mutually agreeable terms. Under the advisement from numerous internet professionals and legal sources, Webadviso believes the domain names, the large internet traffic from the site, and the development programming labor/work that has gone into building the site have significant value. We hope that your organization recognizes these attributes in your effort to negotiate with Webadviso [italics and bold added].
While Respondent did not demand a particular price in its communication to Complainant, the intent to sell is clear. Moreover, in its Response, Respondent “admits to the Complainant’s point that the web site is haphazardly put together.” This contrasts with the statement above seeking to lay importance on “the development programming labor/work that has gone into building the site.” Instead, any “large internet traffic” that might give rise to “significant value” would be attributable to the Domain Names themselves and their suggestive association with Complainant, rather than to the haphazard content on Respondent’s site or the Domain Names’ potential to describe the putative content and purpose of Respondent’s website. As indicated above, the Domain Names, in their descriptive capacity, suggest nothing to do with parody or news or information. Moreover, to the extent that the Domain Names suggest a connection to real estate information which was made available through the RSS feed, this would be illegitimate as it is related to Complainant’s own business.
The list of circumstances in the Policy, paragraph 4(b), are not intended to be exhaustive. However, this case suggests application of paragraphs 4(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) in combination. In sum, Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting his mark in the corresponding Domain Names, thereby giving rise to circumstances that might pressure Complainant into purchasing the Domain Names, particularly as the Domain Names engender an association with Complainant that would attract Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site. The bad faith registration of the Domain Names by Respondent was intended to target Complainant’s TRUMP mark in combination with geographic terms that Complainant might find useful, in order to harass and pressure Complainant into purchasing the Domain Names for a price in excess out-of-pocket costs.
For all of the above reasons, the Panel finds that all the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.
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 Names, <trumpabudhabi.com>, <trumpbeijing.com>, <trumpindia.com>, and <trumpmumbai.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Christopher S. Gibson
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 5, 2011