This is a decision that gave "",
"", "",
"" and "" to
Walmart.  The decision said:

     Based on its finding that the Respondents, Walsucks and
     Walmarket Puerto Rico, have engaged in abusive
     registration of the domain names
     "", "",
     "", "" and
     "" within the meaning of
     paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the
     domain names "",
     "", "",
     "" and
     "" be transferred to the
     Complainant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


These domains were owned by Kenneth J. Harvey, a speculator in
domain names.  

Acccording to the decision:

       The "" and "" web
pages each state that "This is a freedom of information site set
up for dissatisfied Walmart Canada [or UK, respectively]
customers." Each site invites visitors to "Spill Your Guts" with
a "horror story relating to your dealings with Wal-Mart Canada
[or UK, respectively]". On the "" website,
Respondent has posted "Wal-Mart Horror Story #1" which recounts
his version of events in respect to the ""
domain name. Each website posts a photograph of Respondent,
labeled "President", and Respondent's biography. Each "Spill
Your Guts" page indicates "If we feel your story is interesting,
it might be included in award-winning author Kenneth J. Harvey's
forthcoming book - "" [or, on UK page,
"about Walmart"]". 

Walmark indicated these domains were registered in bad faith, and

     Respondents' free speech argument is a convenient and
     transparent dodge. It does not even make sense with
     respect to three of the domain names:
     and WALMARTPUERTORICO.COM. There are no websites
     attached to these domain names. Respondents offer no
     evidence to support a claim that they have made
     legitimate use of any of these three domain names. 

The arbitrator indicated:

     Respondent has appended the term "-sucks" to domain
     names that are, in the absence of that term,
     confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. The addition
     of the pejorative verb "sucks" is tantamount to
     creating the phrase "Wal-Mart Canada sucks" (and
     comparable phrases with Respondent's other "-sucks"
     formative domain names). The elimination of the spacing
     between the terms of the phrase is dictated by
     technical factors, and by the common practice of domain
     name registrants. The addition of a common or generic
     term following a trademark does not create a new or
     different mark in which Respondent has rights.

The decision noted that:    

     Respondent argues that addition of the word "sucks" to
     the base names "walmartcanada", "wal-martcanada",
     "walmartuk" and "walmartpuertorico" causes such names
     to lose their confusing similarity with Complainant's
     "Wal-Mart" trademark. Respondent contends that because
     an Internet user or consumer viewing a "-sucks"
     formative domain name would assume that Complainant is
     not the sponsor of or associated with a website
     identified by such address, Respondent's "-sucks"
     formative marks cannot be confusingly similar to
     Complainant's mark.

     In support of this argument, Respondent refers to
     Lucent Technologies, Inc., v., 95 F.
     Supp. 2d 528 (E.D.Vir. 2000). It is first important to
     note that the observations made by Judge Brinkema in
     the opinion regarding the issue of
     confusing similarity are in the nature of dicta, since
     the court dismissed the action against defendant for
     lack of jurisdiction 10. Judge Brinkema's opinion in, and one decision on which she relies,
     Bally Total Fitness v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D.
     Cal. 1998), each lend some support to Respondent's
     position. However, both cases are distinguishable.

This defense was rejected, however, and the WIPO panel found on
behalf of Walmart, that various "sucks" domains were "confusingly
similiar" to the Walmart trademarks.

     In Bally, the court granted summary judgment in favor
     of a defendant that used the "Bally" trademark on a web
     page, appending the word "sucks", to create a
     "ballysucks" web page. In that case, ""
     was not registered and was not used as a second-level
     domain name. The principal issue was whether the
     defendant could lawfully express itself on its web page
     using the trademark "Bally" in combination with the
     word "sucks". The court held that since the
     "ballysucks" web page was devoted to critical
     commentary regarding Bally, and the defendant did not
     have a commercial purpose in maintaining the site, the
     defendant had a valid free speech interest in using
     Bally's mark.

     The court observed that even a "" domain
     name might not constitute trademark infringement ("even
     if Faber did use the mark as part of a larger domain
     name, such as "", this would not
     necessarily be a violation as a matter of law." 29 F.
     Supp., at 1165). It made this observation in the
     context of applying the Sleekcraft factors. In Bally,
     the court found the defendant's intent in establishing
     its "ballysucks" web page was to criticize the
     trademark holder, and this factor weighed heavily in
     favor of the defendant. In the present proceeding,
     Respondent's intent is different.

     In, the court observed that "Defendant
     argues persuasively that the average consumer would not
     confuse with a web site sponsored by
     plaintiff" 11 . However, the court did not undertake
     any particularized analysis of the disputed domain name
     as compared with the plaintiff's trademark. Moreover,
     the court observed that: "A successful showing that is effective parody and/ or a cite
     [sic] for critical commentary would seriously undermine
     the requisite elements for the causes of action at
     issue in this case." 12 No such showing had been made
     by the defendant in The court was
     speaking in the abstract - and in dicta -- about a
     future case in which the trademark issues would be
     fully litigated. Even so, the court indicated that the
     defendant's intent in registering and using the
     disputed domain name would be an important element in
     determining whether cybersquatting had occurred. The
     Panel does not consider to stand for
     the proposition that "-sucks" formative domain names
     are immune as a matter of law from scrutiny as being
     confusingly similar to trademarks to which they are
     appended. Each case must be considered on its merits.

     The Panel is not making any determination regarding the
     registrants and users of other "-sucks" formative
     domain names (such as ""). The record
     of this proceeding evidences that Respondent did not
     register "" and his other
     "-sucks" names in order to express opinions or to seek
     the expression of opinion of others. The record
     indicates that his intention was to extract money from
     Complainant. An application of the Sleekcraft factors
     in another context involving Complainant's mark and the
     word "sucks" might produce a different result than that
     reached here. The Panel notes that use of a domain name
     confusingly similar to a mark may be justified by fair
     use or legitimate noncommercial use considerations, and
     that this may in other cases permit the use of "-sucks"
     formative names in free expression forums. 

     Complainant has met the burden of proving that
     Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are
     identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in
     which Complainant has rights, and it has thus
     established the first of the three elements necessary
     to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive
     domain name registration.

CPT Comment:

1.   Domain names with a trademark plus the term "sucks" are not
     confusingly similar to trademark.  The term "sucks" is
     clearly a pejorative term, used for criticism and free
     speech.  ICANN should not be in the business of preventing
     people from creating various "sucks" web pages.