A-List, Inc. v. HuoYan / boneasia
Claim Number: FA1401001537180
Complainant is A-List, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rod S. Berman of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, California, USA. Respondent is HuoYan / boneasia (“Respondent”), Japan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kitsonbag.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 2, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 3, 2014. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On January 6, 2014, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <kitsonbag.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 January 13, 2014, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2014 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@kitsonbag.com. Also on January 13, 2014, the Chinese language 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 February 7, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the KITSON mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KITSON mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <kitsonbag.com> domain name, and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name 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.”).
Complainant uses its KITSON mark in connection with various goods including, but not limited to, clothing, shoes, boots, handbags, personal hygiene products, jewelry, and home décor products since at least as early as 2000. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the KITSON mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,217,006, registered March 13, 2007). While Respondent appears to reside in Japan, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to register its mark in the country in which Respondent resides, so long as it can establish rights in the mark in some jurisdiction. See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s registration of the KITSON mark with the USPTO establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has adopted the <kitsonbag.com> domain name, which combines Complainant’s KITSON mark with the additional accessory-related word “bag.” Respondent’s inclusion of a generic term does not differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element). Respondent’s inclusion of a gTLD is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <kitsonbag.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KITSON mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <kitsonbag.com> domain name. Complainant claims that it has not authorized, licensed, or given permission to Respondent to use the KITSON mark, or any confusingly similar mark, in any manner whatsoever including, without limitation, on the infringing products being marketed, advertised, sold, imported, or distributed by Respondent using the marks KITSON or KITSONBAG. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no connection with Complainant or Complainant’s KITSON mark. The WHOIS information identifies “HuoYan / boneasia” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. In Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006), the panel concluded that respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and complainant had not authorized respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <kitsonbag.com> domain name pursuant to ¶ Policy 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <kitsonbag.com> domain name in connection with a website that is selling replica handbags and suggesting they are products of Complainant. The Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage offering handbags with the KITSON mark. Complainant asserts that the association of the KITSON mark with the handbags offered by Respondent poses an immediate and serious threat to Complainant’s business reputation and the goodwill built up in the KITSON mark. A respondent’s use of a domain name to offer counterfeit or competing products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2007) (finding no rights and legitimate interests when the respondent sold counterfeit versions of the complainant’s products in competition with the complainant’s business); 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).”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the <kitsonbag.com> domain name in connection with 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).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent adopted the <kitsonbag.com> domain name, which includes Complainant’s registered trademark, for the purpose of diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s website to purchase its fraudulent handbags. Because Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that sells competing or counterfeit handbags which the Panel finds is disruptive to Complainant’s business, the Panel holds that Respondent has registered and is using the <kitsonbag.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion); 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).
Complainant claims that Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s KITSON mark when it registered the <kitsonbag.com> domain name, due to Complainant’s extensive and worldwide use of its KITSON mark. The Panel agrees 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").
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <kitsonbag.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: February 12, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page