Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc. v. rudy hadisentosa
Claim Number: FA0912001297257
Complainant is Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc.,
The domain name at issue is <charoletterusse.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On December 3, 2009, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <charoletterusse.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC 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 7, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 28, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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 <charoletterusse.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <charoletterusse.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <charoletterusse.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc., operates a retail clothing stores. Complainant uses its CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark to promote its clothing stores. Complainant has registered its CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,485,692 issued April 19, 1988).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on
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.
In order to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), a complainant must provide evidence of registered or
common law rights in a mark. In these
proceedings, Complainant has registered its CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark with the USPTO
(Reg. No. 1,485,692 issued April 19, 1988).
A complainant need not provide proof the mark is registered in
respondent’s country, it is only necessary that a complainant provide evidence
of registration with some federal trademark authority. See
KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO
Respondent’s <charoletterusse.com> domain name
contains Complainant’s CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark with the transposition of the
letters “l” and “o” in the mark, the addition of an extraneous letter “e” in
the mark and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds these changes do not impede a
finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
because they do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from
Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel
finds that a confusing similarity exists between the disputed domain name and
the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii),
Complainant must prove Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. Once Complainant
has put forward a prima facie case
the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate
interests pursuant to the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds Complainant has provided a
sufficient prima facie case, and
Respondent has failed to submit a response to these proceedings. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
There is no evidence in the record suggesting that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no license or agreement with
Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark and the
WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “rudy
hadisentosa.” Thus, the Panel
finds there is no evidence Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain
name to redirect Internet users to third-party websites, some of which compete
with Complainant. The Panel finds this
use is not in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i),
or a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See TM
Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Also, Complainant maintains the disputed domain name takes advantage
of Internet users who commit common typographical errors when attempting to
type Complainant’s CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark.
The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by
misspelling Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds this is further evidence that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 30,
2000. Since that time, Respondent has
been using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website containing links to
third-party websites. These third-party
websites link Internet users to competing retail clothing services. The Panel finds this use of the disputed
domain names is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO
The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying
links to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s retail
clothing business. The Panel presumes
Respondent receives click-through fees for this use of the disputed domain name. Because the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark, Internet users are likely to become confused as
to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and resolving website. Respondent was seeking to profit from this
confusion by hosting advertisements on the resolving website. The Panel finds this use is evidence of Respondent’s
bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See American Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Additionally, Complainant has shown that Respondent has
engaged in typosquatting by using a domain name composed of a misspelling
Complainant’s CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark. The
Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting is evidence that
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under to Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds 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 <charoletterusse.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: January 20, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum