This is not your typical UDRP.

The case involves alleged common law trademark rights, transgendered alter ego’s, and planned sexual reassignment surgery and one very famous deceased actress, Elizabeth Taylor.

A one member UDRP panel awarded the domain names, LizTaylor.com, .net and .org to the The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company .

The Complainant is three entities related to the well-known late actress Elizabeth Taylor, who was commonly referred to by others as “Liz Taylor.” Taylor assigned rights in her name, likeness, and appearance to Interplanet Productions Limited (“Interplanet”) in 1978.

In the 1980s Taylor and Interplanet licensed the ELIZABETH TAYLOR name and mark to The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company (“Cosmetics Company”). The Elizabeth Taylor Trust is the successor in interest to Taylor’s persona and publicity rights not previously assigned to Interplanet.

Both Interplanet and Cosmetics Company hold various trademark registrations for the ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark.

In January 2012 Interplanet filed three U.S. trademark applications covering the mark LIZ TAYLOR for cosmetics and fragrances, jewelry and watches, and clothing and footwear. These applications were filed under section 1(b) of the Lanham Act, based upon an intent to use the mark in commerce.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name LizTaylor.com on July 16, 1997, and the other two disputed domain names, LizTaylor.net and LizTaylor.org, on July 29, 2003.

Complainant alleges that Respondent has never used or developed these domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The LizTaylor.com domain name links to a page that advertises the three disputed domain names for sale, while the other two domain names resolve to pages that include links to third-party websites selling cosmetics in competition with Cosmetics Company.

Complainant states that its representatives contacted Respondent in January 2012 regarding the acquisition of the disputed domain names; in reply thereto, Respondent offered to sell the domain names for $2 million.

The Complainant contended that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks ELIZABETH TAYLOR and LIZ TAYLOR, in which Complainant claims rights.

The domain holder contended that he has common-law rights in LIZ TAYLOR as an assumed name, as he has used that name for most of his life for his transgendered alter ego.

He states that he adopted the name because he was once very close to a person named Liz Taylor.

He acknowledges that he had heard of the actress Elizabeth Taylor when he registered the disputed domain names, and he knew that she was an actress, but was not familiar with her movies and did not know that her name had been used in connection with the sale of products.

He states that he is planning to undergo sexual reassignment surgery in the future, after which time he will be able to “fully utilize” the domain names, although he also states that he may sell the domain names in order to pay for the surgery. In support of these statements Respondent submitted a copy of web page of the surgeon that he intends to consult for the surgery.

Respondent contends that the disputed domain names and LIZ TAYLOR are not identical to nor covered by Complainant’s ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark.

He also states that Taylor hated being called “Liz.”

He denies knowledge of the contents of the pages to which liztaylor.net and liztaylor.org redirect, and states that he has not profited in any manner from these pages.

The domain holder alleges that Complainant was aware of Respondent’s rights in the mark when it sought to acquire the disputed domain names from him and when Interplanet applied to register LIZ TAYLOR as a trademark.

Respondent states that he is considering filing a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and other claims against Complainant on this basis.

He accuses Complainant of having acted in bad faith, and asks the Panel to find that Complainant has engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

Here the the relevant findings of the panel:

Complainant has longstanding rights in the registered trademark ELIZABETH TAYLOR, a mark closely associated with the late actress of the same name, who was often referred to by others as “Liz Taylor.”

Although Complainant does not appear to have any trademark rights in LIZ TAYLOR, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark, satisfying paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

“Respondent asserts that he has for some time used “Liz Taylor” as the name of his alter ego, and that he registered the disputed domain names because they reflect that name. ”

“However, Respondent has failed to offer any evidence that he is known by that name (despite having submitted 11 annexes to his Response, comprising nearly 100 pages), and acknowledges that he has not begun to “fully utilize” the domain names. ”

“Nor has he offered any evidence to support his claimed reason for adopting the name. “

“Based upon the evidence presented, the Panel concludes that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.”

“It is unclear to the Panel why Respondent registered the disputed domain names and has continued to maintain those registrations. ”

“While Respondent claims that he registered them to reflect the assumed name of his alter ego, he has presented no evidence to support this claim, and the claim is belied by the evidence that is before the Panel, including Respondent’s website advertising the domain names for sale. ”

“Based upon the available evidence, it appears more likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain names intending to profit from their similarity to Complainant’s mark.”

“Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith registration and use is evidenced by circumstances indicating that a domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling the registration at a profit to the owner of a corresponding trademark or competitor thereof.”

“The Panel finds this provision applicable here, and accordingly finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.”

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <liztaylor.com>, <liztaylor.net>, and <liztaylor.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.