Chan Luu Inc. v. zhou jay
Claim Number: FA1310001522987
Complainant is Chan Luu Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is zhou jay (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chanluu-bracelets.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 4, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 4, 2013.
On October 7, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chanluu-bracelets.net> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC 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 October 7, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 28, 2013 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@chanluu-bracelets.net. Also on October 7, 2013, 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 October 30, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant states that it has used its trademark CHAN LUU for over 17 years in connection with its widely known lines of jewelry, clothing, and accessories. Complainant claims rights in its mark both at common law and by virtue of various trademark registrations in the United States, China, and elsewhere.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <chanluu-bracelets.net>, registered by Respondent, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant states that it has not licensed Respondent to use its mark, that Respondent is not otherwise entitled to use the mark, and that Respondent has no legitimate reason for using the mark as the dominant part of a domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to sell counterfeit goods, and that this use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant contends on these grounds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the domain name in connection with the sale of counterfeit goods indicates that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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.”).
The disputed domain name is comprised of Complainant’s mark; the term “bracelets,” which describes the goods sold by Complainant under the mark; and the top-level domain suffix “.net”. The space contained in Complainant’s mark is omitted, and a hyphen appears between the mark and the word “bracelets.” The changes fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark. See, e.g., MAGLITAL, S.R.L. LLC v. Consultation, DBD, FA 1473029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 21, 2013) (finding <cruciani-bracelet.net> confusingly similar to CRUCIANI). Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name is strikingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and the only apparent use of the domain name is in connection with a website that sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Chan Luu Inc. v. Carolyn Hampton, FA 1488331 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2013); Chan Luu Inc. v. Li Yong Ze, FA 1463461 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 2, 2012). Furthermore, Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2013, and apparently has been used continuously since that date to sell counterfeit versions of Comlpainant’s products, and for no other purpose. For the same reasons as set forth by the Panels in two very similar cases, Chan Luu Inc. v. Carolyn Hampton, supra, and Chan Luu Inc. v. Li Yong Ze, supra, the Panel finds that Complainant registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chanluu-bracelets.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 31, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page