Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WIPO Arbitration
WIPO Arbitration
WIPO Arbitration
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States v. Second International Bahá’í Council
Case No. D2005-0214
1. The Parties
The Complainant is National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, an Illinois not-for-
profit corporation with an office in Evanston, Illinois, United States of America. Complainant is
represented by Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
The Respondent is Second International Bahá’í Council, an entity with an address in Missoula,
Montana, United States of America, represented by Neal Chase of Missoula, Montana, United States of
America.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February
24, 2005. On February 25, 2005, the Center transmitted, by e-mail, to DotRegistrar.com a request for
registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 28, 2005,
DotRegistrar.com transmitted to the Center, by e-mail, its verification, confirming that Respondent is
listed as the registrant of the domain name, indicating that it had “locked” the domain name,
confirming several details of its registration agreement, and providing the Center with contact
information for the registrant. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements
of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with Rules 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and
the proceedings commenced on March 3, 2005. In accordance with Rule 5(a), the Response was due on
March 23, 2005. The Response was filed with the Center on March 23, 2005.
The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on April 22, 2004. The Panel
finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence required by the Center to ensure compliance with Rule 7.
On April 1, 2005, Complainant submitted to the Center, by e-mail, a request to provide a reply, stating
that Respondent’s submission had made “several inaccurate and confusing statements” that “may need
to be addressed.”
Because Complainant had indicated that it had not sent a copy of its communication to Respondent, the
Center forwarded the request to Respondent. On April 8, 2005, Respondent submitted to the Center, by
e-mail, its opposition to the request.
4. Factual Background
The Bahá’í faith, to which both parties to this dispute claim to adhere, was founded in the mid-1800s.
According to Complainant, in 1963, members of the Complainant, along with members of other
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís around the world, created an institution called the
“Universal House of Justice.” The Universal House of Justice is apparently the highest authority of the
Bahá’í faith and has its headquarters in Haifa, Israel.
Complainant owns a United States federal trademark registration, issued in 1965, for the mark THE
UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE for publications. Complainant also claims to have used THE
UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE mark in connection with “other religious activities” involving the
Bahá’í faith.
According to the Respondent, the term “Universal House of Justice” is defined, in the will of the
founder of the Baha’i faith and other documents related to its establishment and institutions, as an
entity whose president is a descendant of King David, the king of Israel during biblical times.
Respondent claims to be a descendant of David and therefore the leader of the “true” Universal House
of Justice for the Bahá’í faith.
Respondent registered the <uhj.net> domain name in 2000. Visitors to the “www.uhj.net” website are
presented with a page that identifies the site as “The Official Website of the Universal House of
Justice.” The home page includes a photograph of a Baha’i shrine located in Israel and a quotation to
the effect that the president of the Universal House of Justice must be a descendant of King David and
that such leadership distinguishes “the true UHJ from fakes, frauds, and imitations.”
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following contentions:
Complainant has been authorized by the Universal House of Justice to serve as the highest authority for
the Bahá’í faith in the United States. In addition, the Universal House of Justice has authorized
Complainant, exclusively, to use the symbols of the Bahá’í faith in the United States.
The disputed domain name, <uhj.net>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE UNIVERSAL
HOUSE OF JUSTICE trademark, which has been used extensively for many years. The acronym “uhj”
used by Respondent is recognized and used by followers of the Baha’i faith to refer to THE
UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE mark.
Respondent is using “uhj” as an acronym for THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE trademark
without the permission or consent of Complainant. The home page for <uhj.net> is identified as “The
Official Website of the Universal House of Justice,” depicts one of the holiest of Baha’i shrines, and
contains a link labeled “Click here to contact the UHJ” that leads visitors to an e-mail address that is
not the address of Complainant or the Universal House of Justice in Israel.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent does not own
trademark applications or registrations for the marks THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE or UHJ
and is not known by either name. Instead, Respondent is using the domain name to divert those seeking
Complainant’s website and Respondent has caused actual confusion among followers of the Baha’i
faith.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent has diverted those
seeking the official website of the Baha’i faith and used misleading designations to confuse followers
of the Baha’i faith and to disrupt Complainant’s organization. Further, the content of Respondent’s
website is not in accord with the teachings of the Baha’i faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends:
Pursuant to various documents, Respondent is the successor to property of the Baha’i faith, including
its intellectual property, because, among other things, he is a descendant of King David. Complainant
does not have a right to use the name “The Universal House of Justice,” or any Baha’i property,
intellectual or otherwise.
Complainant’s registration of the mark THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE was in bad faith,
done with the intention of hijacking Respondent’s rights.
Respondent is using the domain name in good faith to promote itself as the true Universal House of
Justice. Its website is intended to distinguish it from the Complainant; it explicitly refers to the fact that
the “true UHJ” must have as its president a descendant of King David.
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. For many years before notice of the
dispute, Respondent prepared to use and used the name “Universal House of Justice” and “UHJ” for its
legitimate religious, non-commercial purposes as the “true and legal” Universal House of Justice.
Respondent is making legitimate non-commercial, fair use of the domain name, without any intent of
commercial gain or any attempt to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has no desire to confuse those who follow
Complainant’s teachings. The home page of Respondent’s website discloses its views regarding the
“true” Universal House of Justice, headed by a descendant of King David, and other “fakes, frauds, and
imitations.”
The domain name was not registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or
otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant. The domain name was not
registered in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name
and Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
Complainant is engaging in reverse domain name hijacking.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Debra J. Stanek
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 8, 2005
1 Complainant did not send a copy of its request directly to Respondent, apparently believing
Respondent had a “religious objection” to communicating with it. While the Panel appreciates
Complainant’s sensitivity, it did not interpret the statement that Respondent had, consistent with
Respondent’s religious beliefs, ignored Complainant’s cease and desist letter, to be an objection to
receiving communications. Moreover, the Panel reminds Complainant of Rule 2(h): “Any
communication by . . . a Party shall be copied to the other Party, the Panel and the Provider, as the case
may be” (emphasis added).
2 Compare Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 10th edition, s.v. “acronym” (http://www.m-
w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=acronym) (defining “acronym” as: “a word (as NATO,
radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of
a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters”) with Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary, 10th edition, s.v. “abbreviation (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book
=Dictionary&va=abbreviation) (defining “abbreviation” as: “2 : a shortened form of a written word or
phrase used in place of the whole <amt is an abbreviation for amount>”).