Max Mara International,
Claim Number: FA0904001258577
Complainant is Max Mara International,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <maxmaraparfums.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 21, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 21, 2009.
On April 22, 2009, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 May 1, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 21, 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@maxmaraparfums.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 27, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAX MARA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Max Mara International,
Respondent registered the <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name on October 4, 2008. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a parked website containing click-through advertising links and advertisements for cosmetics, perfumes, and personal care products of Complainant’s competitors.
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 established its rights in the mark to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on its multiple registrations of the MAX MARA mark with the USPTO and other governmental trademark authorities worldwide. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to its MAX MARA mark.
The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s MAX MARA mark in its
entirety, with the addition of the word “parfums” which is a term that is
descriptive of the goods offered by Complainant in connection with their retail
sales. The disputed domain name also
adds the generic top-level domain name “.com.”
Complainant alleges that the addition of the descriptive term “parfums”
actually heightens the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name
and Complainant’s MAX MARA mark because the additional term describes
Complainant’s business. Thus, the Panel
finds that the addition of the word “parfums” fails to alleviate the confusing
similarity between Respondent’s <maxmaraparfums.com>
domain name and Complainant’s MAX MARA mark.
See Parfums Christian Dior v. 1
Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names
that added the descriptive words "fashion" or "cosmetics"
after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark); see also Space Imaging LLC v.
Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding
confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the
complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the
complainant’s business). Complainant
further alleges that the affixation of a generic top-level domain name, such as
“.com,” fails to sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name from
Complainant’s MAX MARA mark. The Panel
concludes that the addition of a top-level domain name is irrelevant for the
purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.
See Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must establish a prima facie case to support these assertions, and the Panel finds Complainant has done so in these proceedings. Once Complainant has produced a sufficient prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to establish it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to submit a response to these proceedings, thus the Panel may infer Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not retain any
license or permission from Complainant to use any of Complainant’s
trademarks. Moreover, the WHOIS
information lists Respondent as “I Bux.”
Taken together, the Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not, and
has never been, commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v.
WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA
740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not
commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru
Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not
commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no
evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the
respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
The disputed domain
name diverts Internet users to a website that promotes the competitors of
Complainant through the provision of click-through advertisements that siphon
these same Internet users yet again to third-party websites. The Panel infers that Respondent obtains
referral fees for this activity, and therefore finds that Respondent has failed
to create 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA
918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a
pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was 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 also Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to
offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of
third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that
features click-through advertising for Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that this likely disrupts
Complainant’s business, and that therefore Respondent registered and is using
the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
David
Respondent has also created a likelihood of confusion as to
Complainant’s source or endorsement of the disputed domain name by attracting
Internet users through the confusingly similar disputed domain name for
commercial gain. The Panel therefore
finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen,
FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s
previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a
web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably
commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet
users to third-party websites); see also
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA
937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that the use of a confusingly
similar domain name to display links to various third-party websites
demonstrated bad faith registration and use 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 <maxmaraparfums.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 4, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum