National Arbitration Forum




Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Annette Manta

Claim Number: FA0903001251890



Complainant is Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, D.C., USA.  Respondent is Annette Manta (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with, Inc.



The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 11, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 12, 2009.


On March 13, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 March 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 6, 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 6, 2009.



On April 14, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A.     Complainant


Complainant contends that it is the owner of the VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark and that its mark is famous. Complainant asserts that its mark is used in conjunction with hundreds of stores in various places throughout the world and that it further reaches millions of customers through its use of e-commerce at its web site located at <>. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the domain name <> to take advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and that the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. Complainant also asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that Respondent registered the name and is using it in bad faith.



B.     Respondent


Respondent provided a brief response consisting of approximately ten (10) short sentences. Included in Respondent’s brief response was the sentence, “I have not intentions to Arbitrate this I have no intentions to keep this domain name. I have notified they will be taking the domain back an may name off.[sic]” Respondent also stated “the name was never used” and “I was not aware that it was an infringement….”



Complainant is Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. and is the record owner of the VICTORIA’S SECRET Trademarks and Service Marks. Complainant is a leading specialty retailer of lingerie, clothing and beauty products who has used the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in connection with its goods and services since 1977.  Complainant uses its mark in part or full to denominate over 1700 retail stores, to title its print mail order catalogue which reaches nearly 400 million customers worldwide, and to market through its website <> which it first registered in 1995. Complainant also uses its website to broadcast live Internet fashion shows to millions of global viewers.


In 2008 Complainant sold more than $5 billion of merchandise in connection with or directly bearing its trademark. Complainant is the owner by registration and/or assignment of 20 valid registrations in the United States Patent and Trademark (USPTO) office and the VICTORIA’S SECRET  trademark has been recognized by numerous UDRP panels as being well established, well know and famous.


Respondent, Annette Manta, is an individual who states that she has not used the domain name and who is not commonly known by the disputed domain as an individual, business or other organization.


Respondent’s response was received in electronic copy, but not in hard copy, prior to the response deadline. As such the response failed to comply with ICANN Rule 5. Respondent’s statement in the response also indicated that Respondent was not asserting a defense to the allegations of the Complaint and thus acceding to the demands of the Complainant.  See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s failure to submit a hard copy of the response and its failure to include any evidence to support a finding in its favor placed the respondent in a de facto default posture, permitting the panel to draw all appropriate inferences stated in the complaint).


Respondent stated that she was not desirous of arbitration and that she was asking her registrar to take her name off the domain thus indicating that she is willing to accept a finding transferring the disputed domain to the Complainant. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”)


The panel agrees that in light of the Respondent’s stated desires to forego arbitration and to concede to relinquishing her rights in the disputed domain name that it is unnecessary to proceed through the standard UDRP analysis and that a summary decision in favor of the Complainant granting Complainant’s requested relief is appropriate.


The Panel thus orders that the domain name in dispute be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


See FINDINGS above.


Rights or Legitimate Interests


See FINDINGS above.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


See FINDINGS above.



Since the Respondent has agreed to give up all rights in the disputed domain name the Panel concludes that the Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Prof. Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: April 28, 2009






Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum