eLuxury.com Inc. v. Kewei Zhao d/b/a eluxurybags
Claim Number: FA0812001239511
Complainant is eLuxury.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Cecilia
C. Ogbu, of Folger Levin & Kahn LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <eluxurybags.net>, 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 December 19, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 22, 2008.
On December 22, 2008, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eluxurybags.net> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 23, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 12, 2009 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@eluxurybags.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 14, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
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 <eluxurybags.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELUXURY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eluxurybags.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eluxurybags.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, eLuxury.com,
Inc., has operated an online retail store for high-end luxury and fashion
items, including handbags under its ELUXURY mark since June 2000. Complainant holds several registrations for
its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e.,
Reg. No. 2,518,286 issued December 11, 2001).
Respondent registered the <eluxurybags.net>
domain name on February 23, 2008. The
disputed domain name resolves to a website that sells products in direct
competition with Complainant.
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the ELUXURY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it holds a registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s <eluxurybags.net> domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark, merely adds the generic term “bags,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” The Panel finds that the additions of this generic term and the gTLD do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s ELUXURY mark, and that the <eluxurybags.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s MARRIOTT mark); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Initially, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <eluxurybags.net> domain name. The burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Furthermore, because Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant’s allegations, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. However, the Panel will still analyze the record under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”).
Respondent’s confusingly similar <eluxurybags.net> domain name resolves to a website that
sells products in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that this use of the
confusingly similar disputed domain name diverts Internet users to Respondent’s
competing site, and thus, is not a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media
Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona
fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website
that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under
its marks); see also Glaxo Group
Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that
the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage
of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial
site).
Although Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information as “Kewei Zhao d/b/a eluxurybags,” Respondent has not offered any demonstrable evidence to indicate that is commonly known by the <eluxurybags.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Therefore, without any such demonstrable evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the confusingly similar <eluxurybags.net> domain name to directly compete with
Complainant. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s conduct diverts Internet users to Respondent’s competing website,
disrupts Complainant’s business, and constitutes bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000)
(finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for
the purpose of disrupting the business of the complainant by offering personal
e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical
to the complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller,
D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted
business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy
¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Moreover,
the Panel finds that Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name
creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the <eluxurybags.net> domain name and its corresponding website, and is evidence of bad faith registration and
use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (“Respondent
registered and used the <my-seasons.com> domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) because Respondent is using a domain
name that is confusingly similar to the MYSEASONS mark for commercial benefit
by diverting Internet users to the <thumbgreen.com> website, which sells
competing goods and services.”); see also
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir,
FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain
name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression
of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance
qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name 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 <eluxurybags.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum