eLuxury.com Inc. v. sholom
Scheiner d/b/a Eluxurytime
Claim Number: FA0805001195130
PARTIES
Complainant is eLuxury.com Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jiyun Cameron Lee, of Folger Levin & Kahn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is sholom Scheiner d/b/a Eluxurytime (“Respondent”), represented by Joel Weiss, of Weiss Arons LLP, New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <eluxurytime.com>, registered with Innerwise,
Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com.
PANEL
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on May 23, 2008; on June
2, 2008, Complainant filed a request to withdraw its Complaint without
prejudice. The National Arbitration
Forum granted Complainant’s request on June 3, 2008. The National Arbitration Forum received an
amended Complaint in hard copy on June 23, 2008.
On June 23, 2008, Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com confirmed
by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eluxurytime.com> domain
name is registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a
Itsyourdomain.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a
Itsyourdomain.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 27, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of July 17, 2008 by which Respondent could
file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail,
post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration
as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@eluxurytime.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 16, 2008.
On July 21, 2008, Complainant submitted a timely Additional
Submission. On July 24, 2008, Respondent
also submitted a timely Additional Submission.
On July 22, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <eluxurytime.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELUXURY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eluxurytime.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eluxurytime.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent makes the following assertions:
1.
ELUXURY is a descriptive trademark and is therefore only entitled to
narrow protection. The addition of the
word “time” is therefore enough to distinguish Respondent’s <eluxurytime.com> domain name from
Complainant’s mark.
2. Respondent is offering luxury watches under the <eluxurytime.com> domain name.
3. Respondent did not know of Complainant’s
ELUXURY mark when it registered the <eluxurytime.com>
domain name.
C. Additional Submissions
1. Complainant’s Additional Submission reiterates its arguments and emphasizes that Respondent was not known by <eluxurytime.com> prior to registering the domain name in 2004, four years after Complainant’s began using ELUXURY.
Complainant also further refutes Respondent’s descriptiveness arguments and highlights that the mark ELUXURY has become uncontestable.
2. Respondent’s Additional Submission adds to
the arguments set forth in the Response, emphasizing that a domain name
registrant need not be known by the domain name prior to registration, and
refutes constructive notice as a basis for bad faith.
FINDINGS
Complainant has a trademark registration for
ELUXURY for online retail store services for various consumer products,
specifically including watches. The
registration was issued December 11, 2001, with a first use date of June 19,
2000. Respondent registered the <eluxurytime.com> domain name on
September 13, 2004.
DISCUSSION
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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently
established rights in the ELUXURY mark through registration with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,528,471 issued
December 11, 2001). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding
that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and
CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding
that the complainant’s registration of the DISNEY trademark with the USPTO
prior to the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is
sufficient to prove that the complainant has rights in the mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant has been using the ELUXURY mark since 2000 for online sales of goods such as clothes, jewelry, watches and other similar items. The term “time” is closely correlated with Complainant’s sale of watches. Previous panels have found the inclusion of gTLDs and descriptive words that have an obvious relationship to a complainant’s business to be “insufficient” to distinguish a disputed domain name. The Panel chooses to follow this straightforward line of UDRP precedent and accordingly finds that Respondent’s <eluxurytime.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELUXURY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). The Panel notes that it finds confusing similarity when the mark and the domain name are compared as a whole OR viewed in separate parts.
While Respondent contends that Complainant’s mark ELUXURY is descriptive and therefore deserving of narrow protection, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2007) (finding that because the complainant had received a trademark registration for its VANCE mark, the respondent’s argument that the term was generic failed under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Respondent’s argument that each individual word in the mark is unprotectable and therefore the overall mark is unprotectable is at odds with the anti-dissection principle of trademark law.”).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 asserts that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name and was not at the time of the
registration of the <eluxurytime.com> domain name. Complainant states that it has never granted
Respondent license nor otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ELUXURY mark.
However, Respondent asserts that it has “grown to be
known” by the dispute domain name because it has been engaging in business
under that name since it registered it in 2004.
Respondent argues that it has had many repeat customers and that the
public associates Respondent, or Respondent’s company eLuxuryTime.com, Inc.
with the <eluxurytime.com> domain name.
Complainant further argues that the <eluxurytime.com> domain name is being used by Respondent to intentionally mislead and
divert Internet users to Respondent’s competing website, where luxury watches
are sold.
Respondent states that it selected <eluxurytime.com> “because [eluxurywatch.com] was already taken”, and not
to intentionally divert traffic from Complainant. However, this Panel finds it implausible that
Respondent did not know of Complainant’s mark when it conducted its search for
a domain name. It surely would have run
across Complainant’s <eluxury.com>, and could have chosen one of hundreds
of possible domain names invoking luxury and watches, without using
Complainant’s entire mark. While
Respondent may have built up a connection between its business and the <eluxurytime.com> domain name
since registration, the Panel finds that its use was not legitimate at the time
of registration and therefore is not legitimate now.
The Panel consequently finds that Respondent’s use
does not consitute either 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 eBay Inc. v. Hong,
D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the
complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a
legitimate use); see also Am. Int’l Group,
Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that
the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real
estate services which competed with the complainant’s business did 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 also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to
market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a
bona fide offering of goods and services.”).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name can be
established under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), stating that Respondent has intentionally
attracted, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name by
creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Respondent argues that the website it
operates under the disputed domain name is substantially different in look,
layout and style than Complainant’s website under the ELUXURY mark and is
therefore not confusingly similar. The
Panel finds that the visual differences in the two websites do nothing to
distinguish the mark from the domain name.
Complainant launched its website at
the <eluxury.com> domain name in 2000 and has been successfully trading
under the ELUXURY mark ever since.
Complainant received its first trademark registration from the USPTO for
the ELUXURY mark in 2001. Complainant
argues that both Respondent and its predecessor-in-interest had either actual
knowledge or at least constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the
ELUXURY mark when the disputed domain name was registered, constituting bad
faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). Respondent admits that there
is a line of UDRP precedent in which registration of a domain name confusingly
similar to a registered mark establishes constructive notice sufficient for
establishing Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi
Int’l v. DDI Sys.,
FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of
bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively.”); see also Florists' Transworld
Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (“Although
it may not be appropriate in every case, in this case where: (i) the
Complainant relies on a famous and distinctive trademark (the FTD Mark); (ii)
the trademark is incorporated in its entirety into the Domain Name whose other
terms relate to business of the Complainant; (iii) the Respondent is in the
same line of business as the Complainant; (iv) the Respondent has used the
Domain Name to promote and sell goods and services that directly compete with
the Complainant’s goods and services, and (v) the Complainant and Respondent
are both located in the United States, the Panel finds that there should be
“constructive notice” of the Complainant’s FTD Mark.”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the
Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on
those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation
thereof.”).
Though
Complainant’s mark may not be as famous as the FTD mark noted above, the
Complainant had been an established business on the Internet in the field of
online retail sales, the exact same field as Respondent, overlapping in the
sales of watches, for more than four years before Respondent registered the <eluxurytime.com> domain name. Respondent states that it selected <eluxurytime.com> “because [eluxurywatch.com] was already taken”, and
not to intentionally divert traffic from Complainant. Again, this Panel finds it implausible that
Respondent did not know of Complainant’s mark when it conducted its search for
a domain name. This Panel finds that
Respondent did have constructive notice, if not actual notice, and that it
therefore intentionally diverted and diverts Internet users looking for
Complainant to its site.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <eluxurytime.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 5, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum