The legacy of late Hollywood super star, Elizabeth “Liz” Taylor, carries on; three years after her death in 2011, the Elizabeth Taylor Trust takes its role seriously.
The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company were named as the Complainant in a National Arbitration Forum UDRP against the registrant of the domain LizTaylor.Photography.
Complainant’s reference to rights to the Liz Taylor name were as follows:
“In 1978 Ms. Taylor assigned rights in her name, likeness and appearance to one of the Complainants: Interplanet Productions Limited (‘Interplanet’). In the 1980s Ms Taylor and Interplanet licensed the ELIZABETH TAYLOR name and mark to the Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics company (‘ETC’), another Complainant in connection with cosmetics, perfumes and skin care products. ETC then launched a successful line of perfumes and colognes under the ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark and has obtained US and non US trade mark registrations for that mark for those goods. In 2005, Ms. Taylor and Interplanet launched a line of jewellery under the ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark. Interplanet has obtained US trade mark registrations for the ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark for jewellery, headwear, pre-recorded DVDs, downloadable video recordings and entertainment services. Upon her death on March 23, 2011, The Elizabeth Taylor Trust (‘the Trust’), also a Complainant, succeeded to all of Ms Taylor’s post mortem publicity rights not previously assigned to Interplanet, including but not limited to her name, voice and likeness. Interplanet has filed three US trade mark applications for Liz Taylor for cosmetics and fragrances, jewellery and watches and clothing and footwear. “
In February 2014, the domain name LizTaylor.Photography was registered with NameCheap; the Respondent in this case sent a very short, informal response:
“The assertions are without merit regarding the Respondent’s intentions to fool potential buyers from the Trusts’ business. The Domain Name is intended to be a fan page. I purchased the name from a reputable registrar that runs a trade mark check before granting ownership. If there is any wrongdoing you should contact the Registrar. The accusation of being in bad faith is frivolous since there is no website yet associated with this name. There are obviously no commercial benefits, click through fees, redirection to commercial web sites etc.”
Obviously the Complainant wasn’t going to let it slide, and rebutted the Respondent’s response; the latter appeared to get frustrated over the potential loss of the domain, and sent out a claim of ‘harassment’:
“Please stop harassing me I already answered you. I bought this domain name to a serious web site so if they were not honest you should go to them now. They will reimburse me and you will be able to have this domain name. […] Since there is no harm to the Trust I feel my freedom of expression is violated by the Complainant’s attempt to shut down my project to create a website, a shrine dedicated to a legendary actress.”
Dawn Osborne, single panelist, most likely saw through all this amateurish attempt at squatting on a demised, famous actress’s domain name, and ordered that it should be transferred to the Complainant.
For the full text of the UDRP against LizTaylor.Photography, click here.
