National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Dana Forsythe

Claim Number: FA1007001335811

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee, of Sequel Technology & IP Law, LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. 

 

Respondent is Dana Forsythe (“Respondent”), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <feevictoriasecretcard.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Hugues G. Ricard as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 15, 2010.

 

On July 16, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <feevictoriasecretcard.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 21, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@feevictoriasecretcard.com by e-mail.  Also on July 21, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 21, 2010.

 

On July 26, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hugues G. Richard as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant provides evidence of ownership of the trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET, and other variations of the same trademark. Complainant submits the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, as it includes Complainant’s trademark in its entirety except for the apostrophe and “s” of VICTORIA’S. Complainant suggests that merely adding the generic terms “fee” and “card” to Complainant’s trademark has no impact on the confusion created. It further adds that the word “card” heightens the chances of confusion, since Complainant offers VICTORIA’S SECRET credit cards and gift cards.

 

Complainant submits Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant provides evidence that the Domain Name currently does not resolve to an active web site and that it was previously used for promoting and linking to the website prizevenue.com. It argues this did not and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, pursuant to the Policy. Complainant further submits Respondent used the Domain Name to divert customers from the legitimate VICTORIA’S SECRET web site to Respondent’s website and to prizerevenue.com for commercial gain. Complainant also concludes from the WHOIS information that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.

 

Finally, Complainant makes submissions that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant concludes as such from the use Respondent was making of the Domain Name, i.e. creating confusion with Complainant’s trademarks and diverting users for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent mentions she was unaware that she “was not allowed to use the Victoria’s Secret name in a domain name”. Respondent is willing to comply with any requests made and to transfer the Domain Name.

 

FINDINGS

As Respondent consents to the transfer of the Domain Name, the Panel finds the Domain Name <feevictoriasecretcard.com> should be transferred to Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

In the present case, where Respondent has not challenged any of Complainant’s assertions and consents to transfer of the Domain Name, the Panel finds it unnecessary to go through the traditional UDRP analysis. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).

 

DECISION

Having established and determined that Respondent does not contest Complainant’s remedy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

Hugues G. Richard, Panelist
Dated: August 2, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum