Montres Breguet S.A. v. George Abraham
Claim Number: FA1501001600855
Complainant is Montres Breguet S.A. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is George Abraham (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <breguet.nyc>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 20, 2015; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 28, 2015.
On January 20, 2015, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <breguet.nyc> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 28, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2015, 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@breguet.nyc. Also on January 28, 2015, 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 February 19, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant owns the BREGUET mark through trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,042,405, registered Jan. 10, 2006). Complainant uses the mark to identify its luxury timepieces and wristwatches, and is one of the oldest watch-making establishments in the world. The <breguet.nyc> domain name is confusingly similar to the BREGUET mark. The addition of the “.nyc” top-level domain, which is generally considered an irrelevant addition, serves to enhance confusion given the fact that Complainant maintains a retail store in New York City.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <breguet.nyc> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, or BREGUET, but is “George Abraham” as listed in the WHOIS information. Further, Respondent’s conduct does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in furtherance of a pay-per-click website.
Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name for an amount in excess of its out-of-pocket registration cost. Second, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct where Respondent has cybersquatted domain names under the “.nyc” top-level domain. Next, Respondent has merely parked the disputed domain name such that the resolving website promotes links to Complainant’s competitors in the field of wristwatches. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BREGUET mark at the time of domain name registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, through e-mail correspondence Respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name.
Complainant, Montres Breguet S.A., owns the BREGUET mark through trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,042,405, registered Jan. 10, 2006). Complainant uses the mark to identify its luxury timepieces and wristwatches, and is one of the oldest watch-making establishments in the world.
Respondent, George Abraham, registered the <breguet.nyc> domain name on October 17, 2014. Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain name.
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: Consent to Transfer
As a result of Respondent’s consent to transfer, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <breguet.nyc> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Complainant uses BREGUET to identify its luxury timepieces and wristwatches, and is one of the oldest watch-making establishments in the world. Complainant owns rights in the BREGUET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the likes of the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,042,405, registered Jan. 10, 2006). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The <breguet.nyc> domain name is confusingly similar to the BREGUET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i ) as the mark is wholly and solely incorporated in the name.
The Panel concludes that Complainant’s request for relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <breguet.nyc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 5, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page