Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. jin mingzhe
Claim Number: FA1210001469433
Complainant is Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is jin mingzhe (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <guess-borse.com>, registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd.
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.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 29, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 29, 2012.
On November 13, 2012, Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <guess-borse.com> domain name is registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., 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 14, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 4, 2012 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@guess-borse.com. Also on November 14, 2012, 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, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (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 issues 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.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds that the Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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."
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.
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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are two Complainants in this matter: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. Complainant states that both Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. hold rights to the GUESS mark and brand which they have used for over 30 years.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Organizing Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
The Panel accepts that the uncontested evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding. In this decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
Complainant asserts that it started its jean company in California, USA in 1981, and has developed its brand into a “global lifestyle brand.” Complainant states that it expanded its operations in 1995 by launching an e-commerce website at <guess.com>. Further, Complainant provides evidence, that it owns numerous trademark registrations with the USPTO for the GUESS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,433,022 registered Mar. 17, 1987). The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO trademark registrations are sufficient to establish rights in the GUESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of Respondent’s purported location or residence in China. See 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.”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <guess-borse.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GUESS mark only adding the descriptive term “borse,” meaning “bag” or “handbag” in Italian. Complainant notes that it uses the GUESS mark to sell handbags, thus making the term descriptive of Complainant’s product offerings. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s addition of a descriptive term to the GUESS mark does not distinguish the domain name at issue from the mark. Likewise, Complainant argues that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to a confusingly similar analysis. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name also adds a hyphen to the mark. Despite the noted changes, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <guess-borse.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GUESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <guess-borse.com> domain name as the WHOIS information identifies “jin mingzhe” as the registrant, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the GUESS marks. The Panel agrees, and finds as such 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 that it is commonly known by the domain name).
Further, Complainant argues 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 <guess-borse.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as Respondent is resolving the disputed domain name to a website selling counterfeit goods under the GUESS mark as well as other goods in direct competition with Complainant. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses Complainant’s photographs of its products and models to sell its goods in violation of trademark and copyright laws. The Panel finds that the sale of counterfeit goods and the sale of competing goods does not amount to 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 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).”); see also Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant claims that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel notes that Complainant’s unrefuted arguments indicate that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit and other directly competing goods. Prior UDRP panels have held that such use of a disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith intent to disrupt a complainant’s business. 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 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. v. David, FA 1138296 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2008) (concluding that the complainant’s business is disrupted by the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling counterfeit products). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has both registered and is using the <guess-borse.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name and Complainant’s copyrighted images to market and sell both counterfeit and directly competing goods at its commercial website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The prior UDRP panels have also held that the sale of counterfeit and other competing goods is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products); see also Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent initially used the disputed domain name to sell educational services that targeted the complainant’s market). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith while having actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GUESS mark as evidenced by Respondent’s explicit use of the GUESS mark and photographs on the resolving website. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and therefore determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <guess-borse.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 17, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page