“Cocaine Bear” is not just the title of a 2023 movie — it’s also a domain name dispute.
A company that apparently operates a mall in Kentucky featuring (maybe) the bear on which the movie is based filed — and lost — a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for the domain name <cocainebear.com>.
I discuss the case in a video.
According to the UDRP decision, the complainant, Kentucky for Kentucky LLC, owns two federal trademark registrations in the United States for COCAINE BEAR, which were issued in August 2022, for use in connection with entertainment services and various types of merchandise. The decision also says that Kentucky for Kentucky licensed the COCAINE BEAR trademark to Universal Studios, which produced the movie.
The movie is very loosely based on a real story from 1985 involving a black bear that died after overdosing on cocaine that was dropped from a plane by a convicted drug smuggler. The movie has received a lot of attention, both good and bad: The Associated Press gave it zero stars, but a costumed version of the bear made an appearance at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, where director Elizabeth Banks presented the award for best visual effects.
Because the <cocainebear.com> domain name was not associated with an active website, the complainant relied on the “passive-holding” doctrine under the UDRP, which allows a trademark owner to establish bad faith by weighing certain factors, one of which is “the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
However, as I explain in my video, the UDRP panel found that the complainant failed to prove bad faith. In part, here’s what the panel wrote in its decision:
The fact that the domain name does not resolve to an active website some eight months following its registration does not, without more, establish that it was registered and is being used in bad faith….
Complainant’s mark comprises ordinary descriptive words and there is no evidence that the mark is so distinctive or well-known that there is no plausible good faith use to which it may be put.
Had the registrant of the <cocainebear.com> domain name tried to sell it to Kentucky for Kentucky, or if the registrant had used it in a way that competed with the goods and services set forth in the relevant trademark registrations, then the outcome of this UDRP case may have been different.
But as it turned out, the outcome of the Cocaine Bear case was not really surprising, though it’s a notable reminder that while some titles may make for good (or, at least, popular!) movies, they don’t necessarily make for good domain name disputes.
(The case is Kentucky for Kentucky LLC v. Camp Zinc, Forum Claim No. 2031224.)
