Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Service
Claim Number: FA1111001415315
Complainant is Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee of Sequel Technology & IP Law, PLLC, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Whois Privacy Service (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bathanbodyworks.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 14, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 14, 2011.
On November 14, 2011, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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 15, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 5, 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@bathanbodyworks.com. Also on November 15, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 13, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BATH & BODY WORKS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc., is the owner of several registrations through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BATH & BODY WORKS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,742,062 registered December 22, 1992). Complainant uses its mark in connection with over 1,600 retail stores located throughout the United States and Canada which advertise, offer for sale, and sell a wide range of items, including lotions.
Respondent, Whois Privacy Service, registered the disputed domain name on November 26, 2005. The <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name formerly resolved to a website hosting competing links and currently resolves to an inactive 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.
Complainant claims that it has established its rights in the BATH & BODY WORKS mark by registering it with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,742,062 registered December 22, 1992). Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the mark is duly registered and that it is the owner of said registration. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the BATH & BODY WORKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering it with the USPTO. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hoffman, FA 874152 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 31, 2007) (finding that the complainant had sufficiently established rights in the SKUNK WORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glu, FA 874496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the complainant had rights in the METLIFE mark as a result of its registration of the mark with the United States federal trademark authority); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the complainant has rights to the name when the mark is registered in a country even if the complainant has never traded in that country).
Complainant also claims that Respondent’s <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its BATH & BODY WORKS mark. The disputed domain name includes the entire distinctive portion of the mark, merely replacing the ampersand with the letters “a” and “n” and removing the spaces between terms, while adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BATH AND BODY WORKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because Respondent failed to sufficiently differentiate the two. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Indidom, D2000-1616 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001) (finding that the removal of the ampersand from “McKinsey & Company” does not affect the user’s understanding of the domain name, and therefore the domain name <mckinseycompany.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to the mark “McKinsey & Company”); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (concluding that the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s CLASSIC METAL ROOFS mark because changing the final term of the mark from “roofs” to “roofing” was a minor alteration and did not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case against Respondent, indicating that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifting the burden of proof under this provision to Respondent. 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.”). Respondent has failed to file a Response in this matter; allowing the Panel to assume that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. 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.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will still examine the entire record before making a determination regarding Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has offered no evidence to rebut Complainant’s argument. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Whois Privacy Service.” Based upon the evidence on record, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Previous panels have declined to regard this particular use as one that establishes rights or legitimate interests in the relevant disputed domain name. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name also fails to qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant states that prior to resolving to an inactive website, the disputed domain name resolved to a site offering links to Complainant’s competitors. Complainant has provided sufficient evidence in the form of screen shots to confirm its argument regarding Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s operation of a website virtually identical to Complainant’s website to offer competing travel reservation services does not fall within the parameters of 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 Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the use of the disputed domain name to operate a website displaying links to competing goods and services was not 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)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s previous use disrupted its business, providing further evidence of bad faith registration and use by Respondent. Prior to November 9, 2011, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolved to a website offering links to Complainant’s competitors. Internet users may have reached Respondent’s website and then clicked through to one of Complainant’s competitors and purchased products from them rather than Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent previous use of the disputed domain name disrupted Complainant’s business, providing affirmative evidence of bad faith registration and use by Respondent under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors); 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)).
Complainant also claims that Respondent’s previous use was for its own commercial gain, constituting bad faith registration and use. As mentioned above, prior to November 9, 2011, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolved to a website offering links to third-party businesses, many of which were Complainant’s competitors. Internet users arriving at the website may have clicked on the links offered. Each time they did so, Respondent presumably collected a click-through fee from the linked site. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain, constituting bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and is using, or failing to use, the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Complainant has offered evidence in the form of screenshots to verify its assertions. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bathanbodyworks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page