A one member UDRP panel awarded the domain name EstherHeesch.com to what the panel found to be a “a rising star in the fashion and modeling agencies…an international supermodel represented by the prestigious agency, Next Model Management.”
“Through years of continuous use in commerce in the United States and abroad, the name “Esther Heesch” has acquired the sufficient secondary meaning under applicable intellectual property law so that common law trademark rights exists in the name even without a federal or state trademark registration.”
I’m not sure about this one.
The domain name was registered on December 31, 2012.
Ms. Heesch is 16 years old.
Check out this language from the panel’s decision:
“The Panel further note that based upon the limited information in Complainant’s record—namely the dates provided in a Google web search—it would seem that the domain name was registered (December 31, 2012) at a relatively early point in Complainant’s new and up-and-coming career as a professional model.”
Well the Complaint was filed on June 18th 2013 which isn’t that much later than December 2012 where the Panel notes it was relatively early in her career.
Could be the youngest person to be awarded their domain name based off their fame?
On the other hand the domain holder pointed the domain to porn and did not respond to the UDRP.
Here is some more of the decision:
“The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark.”
“Complainant submits that she is a rising star in the fashion and modeling agencies. Complainant argues that she is an international supermodel represented by the prestigious agency, Next Model Management.
The Panel notes that although Complainant has not registered the ESTHER HEESCH mark with a trademark agency, Policy ¶ 4(a) (i) does not require a valid trademark registration if Complainant can establish common law rights in the mark.
Complainant contends that through years of continuous use in commerce in the United States and abroad, the name “Esther Heesch” has acquired the sufficient secondary meaning under applicable intellectual property law so that common law trademark rights exists in the name even without a federal or state trademark registration. Complainant asserts that in the second half of 2012, she walked and modeled in runway shows for Prada, Salavatore Ferragamo, Chanel, and other international brands. ”
“Complainant also states that she has also appeared in major ad campaigns for See by Chloe, Valentine, and Benetton, and was recently profiled by the New York Times Style Magazine and WhiteLies Magazine. Additionally, Complainant maintains a popular, frequently-visited Facebook “Fan Page” which receives daily posts and other feedback from fans in the United States and throughout the world. :”
Complainant has stated that ESTHER HEESCH has been used continuously for years in commerce throughout the United States and around the world.
Complainant concludes that such a use of the ESTHER HEESCH mark by Complainant evidences a common law trademark as the Complainant’s name has achieved commercial finality and diffusion.”
The panel found that Ms. Heesch “has met her burden showing common law trademark rights.”