J. Choo Limited v. Wang
Yilan
Claim Number: FA1001001303480
PARTIES
Complainant is J. Choo Limited,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <jimmy-choo.us>, registered with Directi
Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
PANEL
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”) electronically on January 18, 2010;
the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 18, 2010.
On January 21, 2010, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name is registered with Directi
Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi
Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 27, 2010, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 16, 2010 by which
Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
Having received no Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to
the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 26, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the
dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J.
Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
“Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph
2(a) of the Rules. Therefore, the Panel
may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with
the Policy, the Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <jimmy-choo.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO mark.
2.
Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <jimmy-choo.us>
domain name.
3.
Respondent registered and used the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, J. Choo Ltd., is an
international designer, marketer, and seller of women’s shoes, handbags and
fashions. Complainant owns multiple
trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its
Jimmy Choo mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,641,408 issued on Oct.
29, 2002), as well as registrations with the China Trademark and Patent Office
(“CTPO”) (Reg. No. 1,637,164 issued on September 21, 2001) and the United
Kingdom Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 2,299,481 issued on October 11,
2002).
Respondent registered the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name on June 28,
2009. Respondent’s disputed domain name
resolves to a website displaying products being sold under Complainant’s brand,
including handbags and shoes, as well as displaying Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO
mark in the background of the product
pages.
DISCUSSION
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 the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to Paragraphs 5(f), 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 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; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is
being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent
as applicable in rendering its decision.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has
established rights in the JIMMY CHOO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
through its registration with the USPTO, the CTPO, and the UKIPO. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s
federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks
were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)); 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <jimmy-choo.us> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO mark.
The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire JIMMY CHOO mark,
with the addtions of a hyphen and the country-code-top-level domain (“ccTLD”)
“.us.” The Panel finds that the
additions upon the JIMMY CHOO mark fail to distinguish the disputed domain name
from Complainant’s mark, thus the disputed domain name is confusingly similar
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. This Domain Is For
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name. The Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. The burden therefore shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the [UDRP].”).
There is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent owns any service marks or trademarks that reflect the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Meow Media Inc. v. Basil, FA 113280 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 20, 2002 (finding that there was no evidence that Respondent was the owner or beneficiary of a mark that is identical to the <persiankitty.com> domain name); see also Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky, FA 117014 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 3, 2002) (holding that because Respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
Complainant argues that Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use its mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Wang Yilan,” which does not resemble the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name. The Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name udner Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that UDRP ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Respondent is using
the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name to resolve to a
website that displays products for sale, much like Complainant’s
<jimmychoo.com> domain name.
Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant to profit
from the likely confusion of Internet users seeking Complainant’s domain
name. The Panel finds that this use is
not a bona fide offering of goods or
services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
dipusted domain name under Poilcy ¶ 4(c)(iv).
See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v.
Busby, FA
156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the
respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is
blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the
respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use
of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to
advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to UDRP ¶ 4(c)(i),
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant
to UDRP ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent’s <jimmy-choo.us> domain name resolves to a website where Respondent offers products that are produced and sold by Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent’s use disrupts Complainant’s handbag, shoe and fashion business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to UDRP ¶ 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 UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
Respondent uses the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name to resolve to a website that closely resembles Complainant’s website resolving from its <jimmchoo.com> domain name and purports to be Complainant selling its goods. Complainant contends that Respondent is using Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO mark to pass itself off as Complainant for profit. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name by Respondent constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the [UDRP].”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jimmy-choo.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 12, 2010
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM