David Pecker is the chairman of American Media, Inc., publisher of, among others, National Enquirer and Weekly World News. ‘Mr. Ferris’ registered the domain name DAVIDPECKER.COM, had a PPC company host it, where it was keyed to ads for porn, because, according to the registrant, the word PECKER was in the domain name. Mr. Pecker brought a UDRP.
Although ‘Mr. Ferris’ (as he is identified in the decision) did not seem (to me) that he could establish a bona fide intent to use the name in conenction with an offering of goods or services, and altohugh there seemed to be plausible evidence of bad faith, the UDRP was denied. Complainant could not establish rights in his name as a trademark:
” A number of disputes under the Policy have involved personal names, as here, and the panels’ decisions have been mixed on the issue of whether the complainants have rights in the names. See, e.g., Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2006-0560 (finding common law rights in “Tom Cruise”); and The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184 (finding no rights in “Jerry Falwell”).
Indeed, the issue of rights in personal names has generated enough cases and raised enough questions that the matter has been addressed by the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, which states: “While the UDRP does not specifically protect personal names, in situations where an unregistered personal name is being used for trade or commerce, the complainant can establish common law trademark rights in the name.” “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, paragraph 1.6, “http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/overview/index.html” (visited January 15, 2007).
. . .
In this case, Complainant has provided no evidence of his rights in the Disputed Domain Name other than broad assertions that he “is known nationally and internationally by the name David Pecker and his high profile name is linked inextricably with AMI and is cited frequently by the media”, and an affidavit from AMI’s assistant general counsel that Complainant “possesses a strong common law service mark in his name by virtue of his position as being one of the leaders in the publishing industry… David Pecker’s personal fame and reputation have caused his name, as a leader in the publishing industry and as Chairman and CEO of AMI, to acquire a secondary meaning in the industry. Complainant’s name is used to promote AMI and the public understands his name as referring to AMI”. While these statements may well be true, it is nevertheless incumbent on a complainant, except in the most obvious cases, to provide evidence in support of a claim to rights in a personal name for the purposes of the Policy. . . . It is also unclear to the Panel on the evidence provided whether, as required by the Policy in such cases, Mr. Pecker “has ever used his personal name for the purpose of advertising or promoting his business or for the sale of any goods or services”. Joacim Bruus-Jensen v. John Adamsen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0458.
. . .
In light of the above, the Panel is not convinced, based on the limited record before it, that Complainant has established rights in the name “David Pecker” for the purpose of this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has not succeeded in proving the first element of the Policy.
Complainant’s lack of success in this proceeding in proving its rights in the name “David Pecker” does not necessarily mean that Complainant has no remedy. “He may have claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (‘ACPA’), which expressly provides for protection of personal names, or perhaps his actions lie in tort. Complainant is free to pursue his claims in U.S. courts.” The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184.
Note: Complainant has indicated he is considering an ACPA proceeding.
Comment: Entertainers usually fare better in UDRPs than well-known executives, as it tends to be easer for them to show, in the absence of a registration, that their names function as common law trademarks for the entertainment services they provide. That should be some comfort for PETER O’TOOLE.