Miss Universe L.P., LLLP which is owned by Donald Trump just won the rights to the domain name MissUniversCanada.com, in a one member UDRP decision.

“These proceedings are between two parties who organize what are referred to as beauty pageants where female participants compete to be judged on their appearance.

“The Complainant or its predecessors in title have for many years organized what is known as the “Miss Universe” beauty pageant which involves competitors from over eighty countries and which is broadcast live to a very large television audience. Entrants to this pageant are winners of a national “Miss Universe” heat which is held in their local country and where the winner will be awarded the title of Miss Universe [Country Name] or Miss [Country Name] Universe.

“In Canada, the Complainant, through its licensee, uses and has used the mark MISS UNIVERSE CANADA for many years to identify its National pageant in Canada and the titleholder who represents Canada in the international MISS UNIVERSE pageant.

“The Complainant’s business generates substantial advertising and sponsorship revenues.”

“The Complainant owns many registered trademarks throughout the world for MISS UNIVERSE and also for those words in association with a country name. For example in Canada it owns registered trademarks for MISS UNIVERSE and MISS UNIVERSE CANADA, registered in respect of beauty pageants and related goods (registration numbers 392970, 555200 and 7417163).”

“The Respondent organizes beauty pageant in Canada under the names of “Miss Canada” and “Miss Teen Canada” and has registered trademarks in Canada in respect of those terms. He promotes his business via a web site located at “www.misscanadatm.com”.”

“The Respondent admits he registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 3, 2008, but says he does not use it. However he admits that at one stage the Disputed Domain Name was redirected to his own web site at “www.misscanadatm.com”. He says this was “inadvertent” and the result of a mistake by a programmer.”

 

“The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the MISS UNIVERSE trade mark.

The Complainant has prior rights in the MISS UNIVERSE trade mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name

In the present case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name precisely because of its association with the Complainant.

It seems inconceivable to the Panel that the Respondent, who carries on business in the same field of activity, was not well aware of the Complainant and its reputation when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.

In this case, although the Respondent has filed a Response and admitted registering the Disputed Domain Name, he has remained silent on why he chose that name or what his intention was. He has not sought to advance any case that he had a legitimate right or interest to do so and the Panel infers that none exists.”

“Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.”

“The Respondent has not provided any explanation of what his purpose was in registering the Disputed Domain Name. Nor has he given any proper explanation of how or why it was that the Disputed Domain Name was redirected to point at the Respondent’s web site, other than to say that this was “inadvertent” and a “mistake by a programmer”. ”

“This is not a satisfactory explanation. ”

“The evidenced establishes this redirection continued for many years and after complaints had been made to the Respondent by the Complainant. ”

“The Panel finds it difficult to conceive of any legitimate use the Respondent could have for the Disputed Domain Name and infers, in the absence of any proper explanation from the Respondent, that this was part of a plan that would redirect Internet users searching for a website with details of the Complainant’s Canadian beauty pageant to the Respondent’s website promoting his alternative Canadian beauty pageants. In the Panel’s view this falls squarely within paragraph 4b (iv) of the Policy:

“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

This is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent in his Response has not provided any explanation of why it was that he registered the Disputed Domain Name or any legitimate use he might have had for it. The Panel infers that none exists.

In reaching this conclusion the Panel notes that it is in substance deciding that the Respondent’s case that the redirection occurred as a result of a “mistake” by “a programmer” lacks credibility.