Domain Name Dispute Complaint
File # FA0005000094906
File # FA0005000094907
Ruben L. Lopez/Rock City response to the
Irish Realty LLC/rockcity.com LCC response
1. The respondents are trying to confuse the issue saying that "Rock City News" is not identical to "rockcity.com." We are talking about "Rock City," not "Rock City News." "Rock City" is identical to "rockcity.com" on the web.
2. We believe we have shown extensive proof of our trademark for "Rock City" and if more proof is required, we will supply more. Our logo reads only "Rock City" as can be seen on our evidence newspapers from 1988. To this day our logo reads only "Rock City" and although our newspaper also uses the name "Rock City News," the "news" is not part of the logo, and is only typeset below. We have been known as "Rock City" since 1988 and have been conducting business as such in various ways ever since.
3. The respondents say that they are not similiar because we are only a newspaper. However, we are also an entertainment company as well, having produced, promoted, and sponsored many bands, shows, annual "Rock City Awards" events," and various cable TV shows over the past 12 years. We also do "Rock City Audio" which is a telephone music listening service, and "Rock City Records" which has signed 45 bands since beginning in 1995. We also have been providing online music listening entertainment on our website since 1996.
4. The name "Rock City" is not as diluted as the respondents claim. Most of the "Rock City" businesses they refer to are not related to "rock music" at all. The "Rock City" computer company is out of business, and "Rock City Music" is only in Spokane Washington, and only as a "musical equipment retailer," which is different from our services. They started in 1995. We started in 1988.
The "Rock City Records" they refer to is us, and the others, Rock City Sound, and Rock City Promotions, we have not heard of at all. If they can search databases to find such companies, they should, could, and would have found our legally registered name "Rock City" before they started.
5. The respondents also claim that we are not famous because famous is incompatable with dilution. Not only is Rock City not as diluted as they claim, but we are famous, having published our newspaper citywide since 1988, with subscriptions across the country. It is and has been distributed in highly visable public view for free at all rock clubs, stores, and business through out Los Angeles for over 12 years. It is also part of the music culture of Hollywood, and just as the Hollywood music scene is famous, so is "Rock City." Our magazine is well known to the music community nationwide, and is kept a a souvenier by many musicians and fans that visit L.A. It is also used as a promotional tool for many touring bands to promote their L.A. shows. We have been quoted and featured in national magazines as well. All this should satisfy the criteria for being famous.
6. The respondents go into great length to show they planned to use the name before actually launching the website, but failed to prove they used the name before purchasing the name, which is the criteria.
7. The respondents refer to the examining attorney of the U.S. trademark office as approving their trademark for publishing, but that does not grant them trademark rights. We have already filed our opposition to their trademark application.
8. The respondents say that their services are not related to Rock n Roll and have nothing to do with the L.A. music scene, yet we beg to differ. The name "Rock City" alone usually and generally means Rock n Roll. "Rock City Limits" is billed as the "world's favorite road show" that goes to Los Angeles, and it looks like a band to us. The "Sunset Strip" show features the rock band Devo in the studio, rock star David Lee Roth at the Rainbow, which is a famous rock club on the Sunset Strip, and famous rock star Ian Whitcomb. The Sunset Strip itself, which is the home of L.A.'s music scene, is famous for it's rock clubs. Other parts of their website not seemingly related to rock n roll have only been added since this litigation began.
9. The respondents claim not to be acting in bad faith and/or infringing on our viewers, yet have a high profile office in our same town, on our same street, with a big promotional banner attracting our viewers. We have been doing business on the Sunset Strip since 1988.
The respondents also claim to be from Oklahoma, yet their main production office is here in Hollywood, where most shows like these are made. Their founder, Hunt Lowry, is also a famous Hollywood producer, so they have no excuse for not finding our company here in Hollywood before starting.
The respondents have also admitted taking money for sponsors, and continue to promote and use the website despite our February 2000 notice of infringement.
10. We didn't mention "rock-city.com" because originally we filed as only one complaint with both names included, but were informed that we needed to to file a second complaint, which was to be heard by the same panel.
It should be self evident that since "rock-city.com" is apparently owned by the same party as "rockcity.com," and that it is basically the same name, that it's infringement upon use would be the same. Thus, our complaint and evidence is the same.
11. Our allegations were not reckless. Since we could not obtain information as to former owners of the domain name or it's changing of registrants, we needed to include our complaints regarding our original attempts to obtain the name.
The actual confusion is continuing. The similarities are clear. Almost everybody we've talked to that's seen the repondents location and promotion thinks it's us. We get almost daily evidence of confusion now. Our action was only to protect our trademark name.
12. Regarding our failure to notify the respondent properly, we reread the rules and could not find the rule in question. We thought our notification and mailing to the ICANN arbitration would fulfill our obligation, and that ICANN then forwarded the complaint. However, we were notified by Ms. Schaber at ICANN that we indeed were supposed to have sent a copy with the transmittal sheet to the respondent, so we apologize for missing this. It was unintentional.
Rock City vs. rockcity.com - Table of Contents w/ evidence - Complaint - Grounds - Trademark /Timeline - Response Cover - Response - Response to Response - ICANN Decision - Our Opinion/Press Release - Our Opposition to their application for trademark - Call 323-461-6600 or email us.