Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Quest c/o Martin Wong
Claim Number: FA1009001348312
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 Quest c/o Martin Wong ("Respondent"), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <victorias-secret-giftcards.com>, registered with ENOM, INC.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 23, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 24, 2010.
On September 24, 2010, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, 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 24, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 14, 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@victorias-secret-giftcards.com. Also on September 24, 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.
On September 24, 2010, Respondent sent an email to the National Arbitration Forum containing gratuitious information. This is not considered a response as it is not legally binding.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 28, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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, 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 <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc., is an internationally recognized company specializing in women’s lingerie and other apparel, personal care and beauty products, and swimwear. Complainant operates more than 1,000 retail stores throughout the United States and operates internationally through gift card, online retail and mail order purchases. Complainant registered its VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,146,199 issued January 20, 1981).
Respondent, Martin Wong, registered the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name on May 27, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring an article about Complainant’s brand line and links to videos of Complainant’s fashion show. Additionally, the site consists of banner advertisements and text with links promoting third-party websites. Respondent’s resolving website also attempts to “phish” for Internet users’ personal information.
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 must establish two requirements under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
Complainant contends it has established rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark based on its registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,146,199 issued January 20, 1981). Previous panels have held that registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). The Panel concludes Complainant’s trademark registration of VICTORIA’S SECRET mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant portion of Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark and adds the generic term “gift card” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The addition of a generic term and gTLD fail to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Am. 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)); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). Additionally, Complainant alleges that the removal of the apostrophe from Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark fails to distinguish Respondent’s <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name. Complainant also contends that the removal of the space between the terms in Complainant’s mark still renders the domain name confusingly similar. See LOreal USA Creative Inc v. Syncopate.com – Smart Names for Startups, FA 203944 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the omission of an apostrophe did not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Diesel v. LMN, FA 804924 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2006) (finding <vindiesel.com> to be identical to complainant’s mark because “simply eliminat[ing] the space between terms and add[ing] the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com’ … [is] insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s VIN DIESEL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”). Finally, Complainant alleges that the addition of hyphens throughout Complainant’s mark is irrelevant in determining the confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and 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).”). Accordingly, the Panel concludes Respondent’s <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name. Previous panels have found that a complainant making a prima facie showing in support of its allegations shifts the burden to the respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing and because Respondent failed to make a timely response, the Panel may assume that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine whether the record shows Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 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.”).
Complainant argues Respondent is not commonly known by the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name. Respondent has not alleged any evidence supporting a finding that it is known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds no evidence in the record that would provide a basis for finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Martin Wong,” which Complainant argues is not similar to the disputed domain name. Complainant further alleges that is has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); 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).
The disputed <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name resolves to a website that Respondent uses to post advertisements and hyperlinks. Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to discuss Complainant’s brand line, link Internet users to videos of Complainant’s fashion show, and post text with hyperlinks promoting third-party websites. Complainant alleges Respondent financially benefits from these advertisements and links. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links and advertisements is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a portal with hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which may be in direct competition with a 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 also Skyhawke Techs., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name 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).”).
The disputed <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name resolves to a website that Respondent uses to phish for personal information from Internet users. These users are led to believe they are signing up for a $500 gift card from Complainant when they reveal their personal information. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to acquire personal information from unsuspecting Internet users is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s website, and is used to acquire personal information from Complainant’s potential associates fraudulently” does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established..
Respondent’s <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring hyperlinks, advertisements and information about Complainant’s products. Respondent’s disputed domain name registration seeks to profit from Complainant’s international recognition while disrupting Complainant’s business. Given Complainant’s established rights in the mark, the Panel supports a finding of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent uses Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name and resolving website for commercial gain. Complainant alleges that Internet users that are redirected to Respondent’s domain name will become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with Respondent. The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (holding that the respondent was taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <lilpunk.com> domain name and the complainant’s LIL PUNK mark by using the contested domain name to maintain a website with various links to third-party websites unrelated to Complainant, and that such use for the respondent’s own commercial gain demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Finally, Complainant alleges Respondent uses the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name in a phishing venture. Complainant contends Respondent attempts to mislead Internet users into divulging personal information once users click-through to a third-party website. The Panel finds that phishing qualifies as bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <victorias-secret-giftcards.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 3, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page