Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Transparency Global Inc.
Claim Number: FA 1357541
Complainant is Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee of Sequel Technology & IP Law, PLLC, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Transparency Global Inc. (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <victoriassecretset.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 10, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 11, 2010.
On November 10, 2010, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <victoriassecretset.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 November 12, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 2, 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@victoriassecretset.com. Also on November 12, 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 December 7, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Respondent has failed to file a response to the Complaint in this proceeding in compliance with the requirements of the Policy. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has recited as follows:
I am in receipt of the complaint and I would like to work with all concerned to resolve.... [W]e would be willing to transfer the domain as requested provided that the administrative fees of $500.00 USD are paid.
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 compliant response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
Complainant markets women’s lingerie, personal care and beauty products, swimwear, outerwear, and other apparel under the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark.
Complainant owns the rights to the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark through a registration with the United States Patent and Trade Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,146,199, issued January 20, 1981).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <victoriassecretset.com> on or about May 28, 2010.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that prominently displays Complainant’s mark and photographs of Complainant’s products.
Clicking on any of the displayed photographs links Internet users to the website at <amazon.com> purporting to offer the associated product for sale.
Respondent’s <victoriassecretset.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name <victoriassecretset.com>.
Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the mark in a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <victoriassecretset.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a compliant Response in this proceeding.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)).
DECISION
Respondent’s above-cited e-mail communication with the National Arbitration Forum does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, it expresses the willingness to transfer the domain name to Complainant as requested in the Complaint. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <victoriassecretset.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: December 21, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page