Claim Number: FA0805001195249
Complainant is Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise
Blakeslee, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <victoriassecretangel.com>, registered with Udomainname.com LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On June 16, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 7, 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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:
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Respondent registered the <victoriassecretangel.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 provided evidence it holds multiple registrations
with the USPTO and other governmental authorities for its
Respondent’s <victoriassecretangel.com> domain
name incorporates Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark with the following
alterations; the deletion of an apostrophe, the addition of the descriptive
term “angel,” and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The deletion of an apostrophe is not
significant since apostrophes are not permissible characters in a domain
name. See Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Whitney, FA 140656
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Therefore, the Panel finds these alterations do not
distinguish Respondent’s <victoriassecretangel.com>
domain name from Complainant’s
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not possess rights
or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretangel.com>
domain name. Complainant must present a prima facie case to support these
allegations before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has presented a
sufficient prima facie case to
support its assertions and Respondent has failed to respond to these
proceedings. Therefore, the Panel may
conclude Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. The Panel,
however, will examine the record and determine if Respondent possesses rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name over the past year demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA 204148 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent's passive holding of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.”).
Also, Respondent is not commonly
known by the <victoriassecretangel.com>
domain name. The WHOIS information lists
Respondent as “Dave Saavedra,” and the record indicates Complainant has not
authorized Respondent to use its
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has failed to make an active use of the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain
name. The Panel finds Respondent’s
failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI
S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO
The Panel finds 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 <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: July 24, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum