SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. VINCENZO BARTOLI
Claim Number: FA1908001856380
Complainant is SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s (“Complainant”), represented by Lyndsey Waddington of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is VINCENZO BARTOLI (“Respondent”), Italy.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sothebys-investment.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 8, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 8, 2019.
On August 9, 2019, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 13, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sothebys-investment.com. Also on August 13, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 5, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <sothebys-investment.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOTHEBYS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant and their predecessors, through their affiliated companies and licensees, have been engaged in the auction business since 1744. Complainant holds registrations for the SOTHEBY’S mark around the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,638,329, registered Mar. 19, 1991).
Respondent registered the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name on August 29, 2016, and uses it to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this matter: SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s. Complainants both own trademark and service mark registrations and applications for the SOTHEYBY’S mark and marks that incorporate the SOTHEBY’S mark in countries around the world. Complainant, SPTC, Inc. owns the incontestable U.S. registration for the SOTHEBYS mark (without the apostrophe).
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Panel finds that there is a sufficient nexus between the Complainants, and elects to treat them as a single entity in this proceeding, referred to as “Complainant.”
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the SOTHEBY’S mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <sothebys-investment.com> domain name incorporates the SOTHEBY’S mark, and adds a hyphen, the descriptive term “investment” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a domain name from a mark. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Kathleen Kim, FA 1734152 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Respondent’s <sotheebys.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely appends the gTLD “.com” to a misspelled version of Complainant’s SOTHEBY’S mark, less the apostrophe.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <sothebys-investment.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SOTHEBY’S mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark in any way. The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “VINCENZO BARTOLI.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name because it fails to use the it for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in order to acquire users’ personal or sensitive information. The use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Dream Horse Classifieds v. Mosley, FA 381256 (Forum Feb. 8, 2005) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as the complainant by implementing a color scheme identical to the complainant’s was evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). Complainant shows that Respondent’s website features a stylized version of the SOTHEBY’S EST. 1744 logo mark along with related photographs. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant demonstrates that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant, presumably for commercial gain indicates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's SOTHEBY’S mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name without knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sothebys-investment.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 6, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page