## Facts

- Gordon Sumner, professionally known as “Sting,” is a well-known singer and performer who objected to Michael Urvan’s registration of the domain name **sting.com**.
- Michael Urvan, a U.S. resident, registered **sting.com** in **1995**, several years before the UDRP proceeding.
- Urvan did not actively use the website for a period of time; after learning of Sumner’s objection, Urvan linked the domain to **gunbroker.com**, a site advertising firearms.
- Sumner alleged Urvan offered to sell the domain name to him for **$25,000**.
- Urvan denied that he targeted Sumner or tried to sell the domain to exploit Sumner’s fame, and he maintained he had reasons to use “sting” unrelated to the entertainer.
- Sumner filed a complaint under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) **Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)**, administered by the **WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center**, seeking transfer (or cancellation) of **sting.com**.

## Issues

1. Whether **sting.com** is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Sumner had rights (UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)).
2. Whether Urvan had rights or legitimate interests in **sting.com** (UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
3. Whether **sting.com** was registered and used in bad faith (UDRP ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

## Decision

- The WIPO administrative panel **denied** the complaint and **refused to order transfer or cancellation** of **sting.com**.
- The panel concluded Sumner did **not** carry his burden under the UDRP to show the required elements for relief, including proof of enforceable trademark/service-mark rights in **STING** for UDRP purposes.
- The panel also found the record did not establish the type of **bad-faith registration and use** the UDRP targets, particularly where “sting” is a common English word and where the claimed $25,000 sale demand was not supported by persuasive evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A UDRP complainant must prove **all three** elements in Policy ¶ 4(a); failure on any element defeats the complaint.
- Fame under a stage name does not automatically establish UDRP “rights” in a **trademark or service mark**; the complainant must show trademark-type rights recognized under the Policy.
- Registration of a domain name that matches a **common dictionary word** is not, without more, abusive under the UDRP.
- “Bad faith” under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires evidence that the domain name was **registered and used** with a prohibited intent (such as targeting the complainant’s mark); unsupported allegations of an inflated sale offer may be insufficient.

## Conclusion

In this UDRP proceeding over **sting.com**, the WIPO panel denied Gordon Sumner’s request for transfer because he did not prove the UDRP elements required for relief—most importantly, trademark/service-mark rights in **STING** as applied under the Policy and evidence that Urvan registered and used the domain in bad faith—so Urvan retained the domain name.


Sumner, Popularly Known as Sting v. Urvan, No. D2000-0596, 69 U.S.L.W. 2128 (2000)