Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Other Domains
Claim Number: FA1109001408318
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 Other Domains (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <victoriassecretfan.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 21, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 21, 2011.
On September 21, 2011, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com 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 26, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 2011 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@victoriassecretfan.info. Also on September 26, 2011, 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 October 20, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc., operates in the women’s lingerie, apparel, personal care, swimwear, and outerwear industries. Complainant claims rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark based on its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,146,199 registered January 20, 1981).
Respondent, Other Domains, registered the <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name on July 5, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to a variety of third-party businesses, some of which are competitors of Complainant.
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 claims rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. Previous panels have found that registration of a mark with a federal trademark authority confers rights in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Automotive Racing Products, Inc. v. Linecom, FA 836787 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2006) (finding that the Complainant’s federal trademark registration established its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,146,199 registered January 20, 1981). The Panel finds this USPTO trademark registration sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even when Respondent is located outside the U.S. 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 Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
The Panel finds the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to be satisfied.
Previous panels have established that Complainant shoulders the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case against Respondent. Once this burden has been satisfied, the burden then shifts to Respondent to refute Complainant’s claims. See 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)). Some panels have concluded that a Respondent’s failure to submit a Response is evidence that Respondent lacks 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). In the interest of fairness, however, the Panel will continue to examine the record to determine whether such rights or legitimate interests do exist under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS information indentifies the domain name registrant as “Other Domains,” which the Panel finds bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. This lack of association provides evidence that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply). Complainant further asserts that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. With no contrary evidence in the record, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s 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 domain name resolves to a website featuring links to a variety of third-party businesses, some of which are competitors of Complainant. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s 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). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., 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 Panel finds the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) to be satisfied.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s inclusion of links to competing third-party sites on its website constitutes bad faith disruption of Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent’s operation of a confusingly similar domain name will likely lead some Internet users to visit Respondent’s website, when in fact they had intended to visit Complainant’s. Inevitably, a portion of these misdirected users will access the competing links displayed on Respondent’s site, which disrupts Complainant’s business by causing lost revenue. The Panel concludes that this type of competitive misdirection constitutes registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Finally, Complainant urges that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name represents bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Through the use of a confusingly similar domain name, Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its products in an attempt to deceive consumers into mistakenly believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant’s business in some way. The Panel assumes that Respondent collects click-through fees each time one of the third-party links is accessed, thus making the operation of the site economically beneficial. In this way, Respondent seeks to realize a commercial gain through the confusion it creates. The Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also 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)).
The Panel finds the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) to be 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 <victoriassecretfan.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 3, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page