Starbucks Corporation v Leadbitter

Complaint Lodged: September 28, 2004

Expert Selection: December 9, 2004

Procedural History:

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet UK ("Nominet") on September 28, 2004, confirmed by hard copy on September 29, 2004. Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent on October 4, 2004, providing 15 working days for a Response. The reply date was amended to November 8, 2004. A Reply to the Response was received from the Complainant on the same day. The Expert for the case was selected by Nominet on December 9, 2004.

Facts:

The Complainant, a company trading since 1971 in the US, sells coffee and related products globally through numerous retail outlets. The Complainant operates in 35 countries with over 8000 retail outlets and estimates over 10 million weekly customers. The disputed Domain Name resolves to a website, alleged by the Complainant to be using the trademark "STARBUCKS COFFEE" without authorization.

Claims:

1. The disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark.

2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

3. The Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name is unfair and detrimental to the Complainant's rights.

4. The disputed Domain Name constitutes an Abusive Registration.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Respondent's website is a legitimate protest site.

2. Burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the Respondent's website.

Decision:

The Expert finds that the Respondent failed to prove that the website is not a protest site. Therefore, the Complaint is upheld, and the Expert directs the transfer of the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant.

Reasoning:

The Respondent did not adequately defend against the allegations made by the Complainant. The Expert determined that the Respondent's website, despite its humorous tone, was hostile to the Complainant. The Expert noted the lack of consensus among UDRP Panelists on freedom of expression on disputed websites but emphasized the clarity in the UK's Nominet DRS process. As the Respondent did not meet the burden of proof, the Expert concluded that the Domain Name registration was abusive.

Conclusion:

The Expert found in favor of the Complainant and ordered the transfer of the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant.