Luisa Via Roma SPA. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Private Whois
Claim Number: FA1405001560956
Complainant is Luisa Via Roma SPA. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Private Whois (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com>, registered with Internet.bs Corp.
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 May 22, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 22, 2014.
On May 26, 2014, Internet.bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com> domain names are registered with Internet.bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Internet.bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp. 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 May 27, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 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@kuisaviaroma.com, postmaster@liisaviaroma.com, postmaster@luiaaviaroma.com, postmaster@luiasviaroma.com, postmaster@luiaviaroma.com, postmaster@luidaviaroma.com, postmaster@luiisaviaroma.com, postmaster@luisaaviaroma.com, postmaster@luisabiaroma.com, postmaster@luisaciaroma.com, postmaster@luisaiaroma.com, postmaster@luisaivaroma.com, postmaster@luisavairoma.com, postmaster@luisaviaaroma.com, postmaster@luisaviaeoma.com, postmaster@luisaviaoma.com, postmaster@luisaviaorma.com, postmaster@luisaviarima.com, postmaster@luisaviarma.com, postmaster@luisaviarmoa.com, postmaster@luisaviaroa.com, postmaster@luisaviaroam.com, postmaster@luisaviarom.com, postmaster@luisaviaromaa.com, postmaster@luisaviaromma.com, postmaster@luisaviaroms.com, postmaster@luisaviarona.com, postmaster@luisaviarooma.com, postmaster@luisaviarroma.com, postmaster@luisaviatoma.com, postmaster@luisaviiaroma.com, postmaster@luisaviraoma.com, postmaster@luisaviroma.com, postmaster@luisavisroma.com, postmaster@luisavoaroma.com, postmaster@luisavuaroma.com, postmaster@luisavviaroma.com, postmaster@luissaviaroma.com, postmaster@luisvaiaroma.com, postmaster@uisaviaroma.com, and postmaster@ulisaviaroma.com. Also on May 27, 2014, 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 June 24, 2014, 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant
i. Complainant, Luisa Via Roma SPA, has been a premier retailer focused on offering unique merchandise for the luxury market.
ii. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the LUISA VIA ROMA mark (Reg. No. 3,810,944, registered June 29, 2010).
iii. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
i. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
ii. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
iii. Respondent redirects Internet users to Complainant’s own website in violation of Complainant’s affiliate program.
i. The domain names should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith.
ii. Respondent is a recalcitrant serial cybersquatter.
iii. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website through Complainant’s affiliate program.
iv. Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith.
Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds 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.”).
Complainant asserts that it has been a premier retailer focused on offering unique merchandise for the luxury market. Complainant alleges that it is the owner of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the LUISA VIA ROMA mark (Reg. No. 3,810,944, registered June 29, 2010). The Panel determines that although Respondent operates in Panama, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to register its mark in the country of Respondent’s operation if it can show rights in the mark in another jurisdiction. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). Thus, the Panel holds that Complainant’s USPTO registration of the LUISA VIA ROMA mark sufficiently shows rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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.”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LUISA VIA ROMA mark. The Panel notes that Respondent misspells Complainant’s LUISA VIA ROMA mark in each of its disputed domain names. Specifically, Respondent has added, deleted, or substituted a letter from the LUISA VIA ROMA mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s misspelling of a mark does not negate a panel from finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). The Panel notes that Respondent removes the spaces in Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s elimination of spaces and inclusion of a gTLD does not differentiate the domain names from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LUISA VIA ROMA mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 has not been commonly known by the <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com> domain names. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant states that it has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark in the domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the 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 the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant alleges that Respondent redirects Internet users to Complainant’s own website in violation of Complainant’s affiliate program. The Panel notes that Respondent’s <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com> domain names resolve to Complainant’s website at <luisaviaroma.com>. In Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006), the panel found that respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users attempting to reach complainant’s website and in breach of complainant’s affiliate program is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with 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).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant alleges that Respondent is a recalcitrant serial cybersquatter. Complainant contends that searches through the NAF and WIPO UDRP decision databases reveal that Respondent has engaged in an ongoing pattern of such behavior. Calligaris S.p.A. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, D2014-0156 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2014); Yahoo! Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Private Whois, FA 1541475 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 14, 2014); Gap, Inc. v. Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Administrator, FA 1505988 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 29, 2013). In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007), the panel held that prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant states that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website through Complainant’s affiliate program. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name, and its underlying coding, illustrate that Respondent uses the domain name as part of Complainant’s affiliate program. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to Complainant’s own website in violation of the affiliate agreement. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Cricket Commc’ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent registered domain names containing the complainant’s mark after enrolling in the complainant’s affiliate program).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. The Panel notes that Respondent misspells the LUISA VIA ROMA mark by adding a letter, deleting a letter, or substituting one letter for another. The Panel notes that previous panels have traditionally found typosquatting where there is a disputed domain name representing a typographical error with respect to a complainant’s mark. See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <kuisaviaroma.com>, <liisaviaroma.com>, <luiaaviaroma.com>, <luiasviaroma.com>, <luiaviaroma.com>, <luidaviaroma.com>, <luiisaviaroma.com>, <luisaaviaroma.com>, <luisabiaroma.com>, <luisaciaroma.com>, <luisaiaroma.com>, <luisaivaroma.com>, <luisavairoma.com>, <luisaviaaroma.com>, <luisaviaeoma.com>, <luisaviaoma.com>, <luisaviaorma.com>, <luisaviarima.com>, <luisaviarma.com>, <luisaviarmoa.com>, <luisaviaroa.com>, <luisaviaroam.com>, <luisaviarom.com>, <luisaviaromaa.com>, <luisaviaromma.com>, <luisaviaroms.com>, <luisaviarona.com>, <luisaviarooma.com>, <luisaviarroma.com>, <luisaviatoma.com>, <luisaviiaroma.com>, <luisaviraoma.com>, <luisaviroma.com>, <luisavisroma.com>, <luisavoaroma.com>, <luisavuaroma.com>, <luisavviaroma.com>, <luissaviaroma.com>, <luisvaiaroma.com>, <uisaviaroma.com>, and <ulisaviaroma.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page