Dermalogica, Inc. and The International Dermal Institute v. Yves L.
Claim Number: FA0803001156401
Complainant is Dermalogica, Inc. and The International Dermal
Institute (“Complainant”),
represented by David J. Steele, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <dermalogicacleanser.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On March 12, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 1, 2008 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dermalogicacleanser.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DERMALOGICA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant produces skin care products and markets them
around the world under the DERMALOGICA mark, which Complainant registered with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on
Respondent registered the <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name on
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant has established rights in the DERMALOGICA mark
for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”); see also Smart
Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require the complainant to
demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that the complainant has a bona
fide basis for making the complaint in the first place).
Complainant contends that
Respondent’s <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its DERMALOGICA mark. The <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s mark in two
ways: (1) the term “cleanser” has been added; and (2) the generic top-level
domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has been added.
The Panel finds that these changes do not minimize or eliminate the
resulting likelihood of confusion, and so Respondent’s disputed domain name is
not sufficiently distinguished from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Christie’s Inc. v.
Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that
the domain name
<christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's
mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense); see also Brambles
Indus. Ltd. v. Geelong Car Co. Pty. Ltd., D2000-1153 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <bramblesequipment.com> is confusingly
similar because the combination of the two words "brambles" and
"equipment" in the domain name implies that there is an association
with the complainant’s business); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the
addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the
suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the
name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is
satisfied).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), after the complainant makes a prima facie case against the respondent, the respondent then has the burden of showing evidence that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that, absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known
by the disputed domain name, <dermalogicacleanser.com>,
nor have they ever been the owner or licensee of the DERMALOGICA mark. The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name
does not identify the Respondent as any variant of the DERMALOGICA mark, only
as “Yves L.” This evidence, along with the fact that
Respondent has failed to show any evidence contrary to Complainant’s
contentions, compels the Panel to find that Respondent is not commonly known as
<dermalogicacleanser.com>
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong
evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order
to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come
forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or
<celebrexrx.com>.”); see also Brown v. Sarrault, FA 99584 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent maintains a website at <dermalogicacleanser.com> that features links to third-party advertisement websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this use of the domain name <dermalogicacleanser.com> is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a series of hyperlinks and a banner advertisement was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to divert Internet customers from Complainant’s website to
Respondent’s website, through the confusion caused by the similarity between
the DERMALOGICA mark and the <dermalogicacleanser.com>
domain name. At Respondent’s website
that resolves from the disputed domain name <dermalogicacleanser.com>, visitors are connected to websites
advertising products from Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business,
and is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant also contends that Respondent is gaining commercially through this diversion through click-through fees. The Panel finds that this is an intentional use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, and so, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this use is also evidence of registration and use in bad faith. See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); Qwest Comm’ns Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and websites in competition with Complainant. Respondent’s attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dermalogicacleanser.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum