## Facts

- Bruce Springsteen, a world-famous recording artist, operated an official website at **brucespringsteen.net**.
- Jeff Burgar, using the name **“Bruce Springsteen Club” / “Bruce Springsteen Fan Club”** (based in Alberta, Canada), registered the domain **brucespringsteen.com** in **1996**.
- At least for a period, entering **brucespringsteen.com** redirected users to Burgar’s broader celebrity-focused portal (often described as “Celebrity 1000”).
- After Springsteen filed the UDRP complaint, the domain was pointed to a site presented as a **fan club / fan site**, featuring items such as a biography and message-board-style content.
- Springsteen did **not** rely on a registered trademark for “Bruce Springsteen.” He claimed **common-law rights** in his personal name based on fame and public recognition.
- Because Burgar registered the domain through a registrar that incorporated the **Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)**, the dispute proceeded in a **WIPO** administrative proceeding before a **three-member panel**.
- Springsteen argued that Burgar had engaged in a broader pattern of registering celebrity names as domain names and that the brucespringsteen.com registration took unfair advantage of Springsteen’s name.

## Issues

1. Does **brucespringsteen.com** qualify as identical or confusingly similar to a **trademark or service mark in which Springsteen has rights** for purposes of UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i), where Springsteen relies on **common-law rights** in his personal name?
2. Did Burgar (and the “Bruce Springsteen Fan Club/Club”) have **rights or legitimate interests** in the domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii), including based on operation of a fan site?
3. Did Springsteen prove the domain name was **registered and used in bad faith** under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(iii), including any of the bad-faith examples in UDRP ¶ 4(b) (such as using the domain to attract users by creating confusion for commercial gain)?

## Decision

- The WIPO panel ruled **2–1** for Burgar and the Bruce Springsteen Fan Club/Club and **denied** Springsteen’s request to transfer **brucespringsteen.com**.
- The majority treated the domain as **literally identical** to Springsteen’s name, but found Springsteen had not carried his burden under the UDRP on the remaining required elements.
- On **rights/legitimate interests**, the majority accepted that Burgar’s fan-club framing and related site content supported at least **some legitimate interest** in the domain on this record.
- On **bad faith**, the majority concluded Springsteen did not show that Burgar registered and used the domain within the UDRP’s bad-faith standards (for example, a primary purpose to sell to Springsteen, to disrupt Springsteen, or to mislead users for commercial gain).
- One panelist **dissented**, reasoning that Springsteen’s fame supported common-law trademark rights in his name, that users were likely to expect **brucespringsteen.com** to be official, and that the domain’s redirection and overall circumstances supported findings of no legitimate interest and bad faith.

## Legal Principles

- Under UDRP ¶ 4(a), a complainant must prove **all three** elements: (i) identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights, (ii) respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and (iii) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
- A personal name can, in some cases, function as a **common-law mark** if it operates as a source identifier, but the complainant bears the burden to show such rights in the UDRP record.
- A respondent may establish **rights or legitimate interests** where the domain is used for a genuine fan or informational site, depending on the facts presented and how the site is run.
- Bad faith requires evidence tied to the UDRP standard, including circumstances like targeting the complainant to sell the domain, a pattern of blocking registrations, disruption of a competitor, or using confusion to draw users for commercial gain (UDRP ¶ 4(b)).
- A split decision may occur where panelists differ on whether fame alone shows sufficient trademark-type rights in a name and whether a “fan site” claim is credible given redirection to broader traffic-generating pages.

## Conclusion

In *Bruce Springsteen v. Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Fan Club*, the WIPO panel refused to transfer **brucespringsteen.com** because the majority found Springsteen had not met the UDRP’s required proof, particularly on **legitimate interests** and **bad-faith registration and use**, even though the domain matched Springsteen’s name; a dissenting panelist would have ordered transfer based on Springsteen’s common-law rights and the likelihood of user confusion.


Bruce Springsteen v. Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Fan Club, Case # D2000-1532 (2001)