The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. and NM
Claim Number: FA0906001267679
Complainant is The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. and NM Nevada
Trust (“Complainant”), represented by
Anne F. Bradley, of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Fang Wu c/o Wu Fang (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <neimanmarcushop.com>, registered with Hichina Zhicheng Technology Ltd.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 10, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 12, 2009. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On June 11, 2009, Hichina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name is registered with Hichina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hichina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hichina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. 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 23, 2009, a Chinese language Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 13, 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@neimanmarcushop.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc. and NM Nevada Trust, established its retail business in 1907
as a local specialty store in
Respondent registered the <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name on May 26, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that sells counterfeit third-party products that directly compete with the products that Complainant sells.
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 NEIMAN MARCUS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its several registrations of this mark with the USPTO. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <neimanmarcushop.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s entire NEIMAN MARCUS mark, adds the
descriptive term “hop,” which is a misspelling of the term “shop” that
describes Complainant’s business, and adds the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that
the <neimanmarcushop.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because none of the above additions to Complainant’s mark sufficiently
distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. 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 Kohler Co. v.
Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the
complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which
is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
At the outset, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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).”).
Respondent’s <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name resolves to a website that sells counterfeit third-party products that directly compete with the products that Complainant sells. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name to sell competing products 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 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); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2007) (Panelist Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., dissenting) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the complainant’s business did not constitute 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)).
Furthermore, Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information
as “Fang Wu c/o Wu Fang,” which does not
indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name. Respondent has not
offered any evidence to indicate otherwise.
The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney,
FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was
not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as
well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the
respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant
had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its
registered mark); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name resolves to a website that sells counterfeit goods that directly compete with Complainant’s retail business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Spark Networks PLC v. Houlihan, FA 653476 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s registration of a domain name substantially similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN SINGLES mark in order to operate a competing online dating website supported a finding that respondent registered and used the domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
Furthermore, Respondent’s aforementioned use of the
confusingly similar <neimanmarcushop.com>
domain name to operate a competing business constitutes bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent is commercially gaining from
Complainant’s goodwill surrounding the NEIMAN MARCUS mark. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of
the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the
complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of
the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000)
(finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the
domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold
under the complainant’s famous mark).
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 <neimanmarcushop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 28, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum