Critical Legal Thinking Question

Information Technology a CASE 17.3 NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM Domain Name New York Yankees Partnership d/b/a The New York Yankees Baseball Club Claim Number FA0609000803277 (2006) National Arbitration Forum "Such use by Moniker is indicative of an intent to The Yankees own the trademark for the NEW disrupt the business of the Yankees, and constitutes YORK YANKEES (Reg. No. 1,073,346), which was registration and use of the disputed domain name issued to the Yankees by the U.S. Patent and Trade- in bad faith." mark Office (PTO) on September 13, 1977. Moni- -Kalina, Judge, Retired ker Online Services, Inc. (Moniker) registered the domain name . Moniker oper- Facts ates a commercial website under this domain name The New York Yankees Partnership d/b/a/ The New where it offers links to third-party commercial York Yankees Baseball Club (Yankees) is among the websites that sell tickets to Yankee baseball games world's most recognized and followed sports teams, and sell merchandise bearing the NEW YORK having won more than 20 World Series Champion- YANKEES trademark without the Yankees' permis- ships and more than 30 American League pennants. sion. The Yankees filed a complaint with the National (continued)Arbitration Forum alleging that Moniker had reg- domain name. Such use by Moniker is indic- istered the domain in bad faith in violation of the ative of an intent to disrupt the business Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Num- of the Yankees, and constitutes registration bers (ICANN) Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution and use of the disputed domain name in bad Policy and seeking to obtain the domain name from faith. Moniker. Issue Decision Did Moniker violate the ICANN's Uniform Domain The arbitrator held that Moniker violated the ICANN Dispute Resolution Policy (Policy)? Policy and ordered that the domain name be transferred from Moniker to the Language of the Arbitrator Yankees. Complaint has sufficiently demonstrated that Moniker's domain Critical Legal Thinking Questions name is confusingly similar to complain- Did Moniker act ethically in obtaining and using the ant's NEW YORK YANKEES mark. There is no domain name and website? Do evidence in the record to suggest that Mon- you think that the element of bad faith was shown iker is commonly known by the disputed in this case