Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. huang jianying c/o huang jianying
Claim Number: FA1002001307340
Complainant is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (“Complainant”), represented by J.
Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional
Corporation,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <louisvuittoninfo.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 9, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 10, 2010. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On February 9, 2010, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 February 19, 2010, a Chinese language Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 11, 2010 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@louisvuittoninfo.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 18, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., is an international designer and producer of clothing, handbags, shoes and related fashion accessories. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its LOUIS VUITTON mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,904,197 issued on November 23, 2004). Complainant also owns trademark registrations with the Chinese Patent and Trademark Office (“CPTO”) for its LOUIS VUITTON mark (e.g., Reg. No. 241,019 issued on May 7, 1999).
Respondent registered the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name on June 11, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering “Louis Vuitton” replica handbags for sale.
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.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its LOUIS VUITTON mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,904,197 issued on November 23, 2004) and the CPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 241,019 issued on May 7, 1999) as well as many other countries around the world. The Panel finds that Complainant’s multiple trademark registrations with federal trademark authorities around the world are sufficient evidence of Complainant’s rights in its LOUIS VUITTON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”); 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 contends that the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its LOUIS VUITTON mark. Complainant notes that the disputed domain name contains its mark in its entirety, without the space between the words, adds the generic abbreviation “info,” and includes the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name will confuse Internet users conducting a search for Complainant’s business, and further that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s official <louisvuitton.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), where it simply removes the space between words of the mark, adds the generic abbreviation “info,” and adds the gTLD “.com.” See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sutton Group Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Rodger, D2005-0126 (WIPO June 27, 2005) (finding that the domain name <suttonpromo.com> is confusingly similar to the SUTTON mark because the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to the distinctive element in a domain name is immaterial to the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See 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 Policy.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The Panel finds that the Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use its mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as the registrant of the disputed domain name, and Respondent offers no evidence that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that, absent affirmative evidence from Respondent, that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <louisvuittoninfo.com> 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 Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant further argues that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the <louisvuittoninfo.com>
domain name because Respondent’s use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use. Complainant
contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website where
Respondent sells counterfeit and unauthorized replicas of Complainant’s
products. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <louisvuittoninfo.com>
domain name to attract Internet users to its website where it sells replicas of
Complainant’s products is not in connection with 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 Hewlett-Packard
Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and used the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name in bad faith. Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to its website, where it sells counterfeit products of Complainant, creates a disruption in the business of Complainant. Complainant further argues that Internet users seeking its official <louisvuitton.com> website will be confused about the affiliation and management of Respondent’s <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s business to its competing website constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business); see also Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent is using the
confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its website for
commercial gain in bad faith.
Complainant submits evidence that shows Respondent’s website that
resolves from the disputed domain name is displaying replica products of
Complainant for sale. Complainant
contends that this use, in connection with the confusingly similar domain name
is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name to attract Internet
users to its website for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <louisvuittoninfo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum