“Such use by Moniker is indicative of an intent to disrupt the business of the Yankees, and constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.”Kalina, Judge, Retired 

Facts: The New York Yankees Partnership d/b/a/ The New York Yankees Baseball Club (Yankees) is among the world’s most recognized and followed sports teams, having won more than 20 World Series Championships and more than 30 American League pennants. The Yankees own the trademark for the NEW YORK YANKEES (Reg. No. 1,073,346), which was issued to the Yankees by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on September 13, 1977. Moniker Online Services, Inc. (Moniker) registered the domain name . Moniker operates a commercial website under this domain name where it offers links to third-party commercial websites that sell tickets to Yankee baseball games and sell merchandise bearing the NEW YORK YANKEES trademark without the Yankees’ permission. The Yankees filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum alleging that Moniker had registered the domain in bad faith in violation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy and seeking to obtain the domain name from Moniker. 

Issue: Did Moniker violates the ICANN’s Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (Policy)? 

Language of the Arbitrator: Complaint has sufficiently demonstrated that Moniker’s domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s NEW YORK YANKEES mark. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Moniker is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Such use by Moniker is indicative of an intent to disrupt the business of the Yankees, and constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Decision The arbitrator held that Moniker violated the ICANN Policy and ordered that the  domain name be transferred from Moniker to the Yankees. Do you think that the element of “bad faith” was shown in this case? Why or why not? 

Ethics Questions: Did Moniker act ethically in obtaining and using the domain name and website? Do you think that the element of “bad faith” was shown in this case?