Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Ju Yu and Lei Chen
Claim Number: FA1009001347631
Complainant is Juicy Couture, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Holly Pranger of Pranger Law Group, California, USA. Respondents are Ju Yu and Lei Chen ("Respondent"), Idaho, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <kissjuicy.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The domain name at issue is <7juicy.com>, registered with Tucows Inc.
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 September 21, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 21, 2010.
On September 22, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <kissjuicy.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 22, 2010, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <7juicy.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 30, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 20, 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@juicycoutureclub.com, postmaster@juicy-blog.com, postmaster@juicycoutureblog.com, postmaster@juicyedhardy.com, postmaster@juicyqueens.com, postmaster@7juicy.com, and postmaster@kissjuicy.com. Also on September 30, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 3, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <juicy-blog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUICY mark.
Respondent’s <juicycoutureclub.com> and <juicycoutureblog.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUICY COUTURE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Juicy Couture, Inc., is a designer, fabricator, and distributor of women’s casual attire specializing in maternity wear and comfortable jeans that has, since 1997, expanded to include jewelry, men’s and children’s apparel, handbags, and other accessories. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its JUICY (e.g., Reg. No,. 2,285,232 issued October 12, 1999) and JUICY COUTURE marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,348,674 issued May 9, 2000).
Respondent registered the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names between May 9, 2010 and June 9, 2010. Respondent’s <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com> domain names resolve to websites that display Complainant’s mark and offer links to websites that sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent’s <kissjuicy.com> domain name resolves to Respondent’s website that sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent’s <7juicy.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence showing that the disputed domain names are controlled by one entity and will proceed in this matter as such.
Complainant has submitted evidence to establish rights in its JUICY (e.g., Reg. No,. 2,285,232 issued October 12, 1999) and JUICY COUTURE marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,348,674 issued May 9, 2000) under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the JUICY and JUICY COUTURE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through such registrations with the USPTO. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). The Panel further notes that Complainant can establish rights in its mark although the <juicyedhardy.com> domain name contains both Complainant’s mark and the registered mark of a third-party. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Complainant has the right to protect its trademark whether standing alone, or included in a string of industry-related marks. Respondent’s inclusion of other drug-related marks [in the <viagra-xenical-celebrex-propecia-meridia-zyban.com> domain name] only increases the likelihood that confusion will result from use of the domain name.”); see also Seagate Tech. LLC v. Zhanfeng, FA 635276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2006) (finding that the <seagate-maxtor.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s SEAGATE mark where the respondent registered the domain name on the same day the complainant announced a merger with a company operating under the MAXTOR mark).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <juicy-blog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUICY mark. The Panel notes that the domain names all contain the entire mark while making additions to the mark such as a hyphen and generic term “blog,” or the generic terms “ed” and “hardy,” that compromise a third-party’s registered mark, or the generic term “queens,” or the numeral “7,” or the generic term “kiss.” The Panel finds that such additions to Complainant’s mark are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Mahony, FA 112559 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2002) (holding the domain name to be confusingly similar where <e-viagra-xenical-celebrex-propecia.com> merely includes the addition of related industry-specific words, namely, the marks of the complainant’s competitors); America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark); 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).
The Panel also notes that UDRP precedent is clear that the addition of a generic top-level domain (“gLTD”) such as “.com” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
Respondent’s <juicycoutureclub.com> and <juicycoutureblog.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUICY COUTURE mark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain names both contain Complainant’s entire mark, absent the space between the terms of the mark, while adding the generic terms “club” or “blog” and the gTLD “.com.” Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See American 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 American Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Texas Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to display that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names. Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings, and as such the Panel finds that it may infer that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See American Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). However, the Panel will analyze the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names. The WHOIS information for each domain name identifies “Ju Yu or Lei Chen” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 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).
Respondent’s <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, and <juicyqueens.com> domain names resolve to websites that display Complainant’s mark and offer links to websites that sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Complainant contends that one of the links located on all of the above referenced disputed domain names is to Respondent’s <kissjuicy.com> domain name, which resolves to Respondent’s website that sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to display third-party links to companies that sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. Northwest Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant 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)).
Respondent’s <kissjuicy.com> domain name resolves to Respondent’s website that sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that such competing use for Respondent’s commercial gain without authorization from Complainant does 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). See National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Halpern, D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) (finding that domain names used to sell the complainant’s goods without the complainant’s authority, as well as others’ goods, is not bona fide use); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Mahony, FA 112559 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2002) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to solicit pharmaceutical orders without a license or authorization from the complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
Lastly, Respondent’s <7juicy.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. Previous panels have determined that a respondent’s passive holding of a domain name containing the trademark of another is evidence that such respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name); see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Respondent’s failure to associate content with its disputed domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <7juicy.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant has submitted evidence to show that the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, and <juicyqueens.com> domain names resolve to websites that display Complainant’s mark and offer links to websites that sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Complainant further alleges that one of the links located on all of the above referenced disputed domain names is to Respondent’s <kissjuicy.com> domain name, which resolves to Respondent’s website that sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Panel infers that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names results in a disruption of Complainant’s business and online presence and is evidence of 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 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).
Complainant further submits evidence to show that Complainant is profiting commercially from its use of the <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com> domain names through the use of click-through links to competing websites, including Respondent’s own website. The Panel finds that such use by Respondent is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the <kissjuicy.com> domain name to resolve to a website that advertises and sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Complainant contends that Respondent’s intent to profit off of Complainant’s mark and product line is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise and sell counterfeit products under Complainant’s JUICY mark is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <wwfauction.com> domain name in bad faith because the name resolved to a commercial website that the complainant’s customers were likely to confuse with the source of the complainant’s products, especially because of the respondent’s prominent use of the complainant’s logo on the site); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel also finds that it may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that the review is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b) but to the totality of the circumstances. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (“The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove that domain names are being used in bad faith does not require that it prove in every instance that a respondent is taking positive action. Use in bad faith can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances even when the registrant has done nothing more than register the names.”).
Complainant has submitted evidence to show that Respondent’s <7juicy.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. Complainant argues that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name is also evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name since registering it on May 9, 2010 is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
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 <juicycoutureclub.com>, <juicy-blog.com>, <juicycoutureblog.com>, <juicyedhardy.com>, <juicyqueens.com>, <7juicy.com>, and <kissjuicy.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
a
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page