national arbitration forum




Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Gilles Jospa

Claim Number: FA0905001265473



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 Gilles Jospa (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 29, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 1, 2009.


On May 29, 2009, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> 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 June 3, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 23, 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.


Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On June 26, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.


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:


Complainant operates more than 1,300 Victoria’s Secret retail stores throughout the United States and Canada. 


Complainant uses its VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark in connection with the marketing of women’s lingerie, clothing, personal care products, swimwear, and gift items.


Complainant also uses its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark to provide credit card services to its customers under the name “Angel Card.” 


Complainant registered its VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 20, 1981 (Reg. No. 1,146,199). 


Respondent registered the <> domain name on November 17, 2006. 


The disputed domain name resolves to a website which features links to third-party websites, some of which compete with the business of Complainant. 


Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark.


Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <>.


Respondent registered and uses the subject domain name in bad faith.


B.  Respondent has filed a written Response in this proceeding, which provides in pertinent part as follows: “I agree to transfere [sic] the domain to the complainant.”



Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred to it:


i.         the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii.       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii.      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.”


Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004;  see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)). 



Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular it does not contest Complainant’s request that the domain name in issue be transferred to Complainant, but instead expressly agrees that the domain be so transferred. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.


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





Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2009


Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page

National Arbitration Forum