Barefoot Dreams, Inc. v. charline ross / cozychicboutique
Claim Number: FA2203001986577
Complainant is Barefoot Dreams, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Merri Moken of Paul Hastings LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is charline ross / cozychicboutique (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cozychicboutique.store>, registered with Tucows Domains 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 2, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 2, 2022.
On March 2, 2022, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cozychicboutique.store> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 March 4, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2022 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@cozychicboutique.store. Also on March 4, 2022, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 engages in the business of selling luxury clothing, bedding, accessories, and household goods. Complainant asserts rights in the COZYCHIC mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world, including in the United States Patent in 2004.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its COZYCHIC mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “boutique” and the “.store” top-level domain.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the COZYCHIC mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent attempts to deceive users about the association between Complainant and Respondent; the resolving website offers for sales products that are not related to those of Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant, displaying unrelated products and mimicking Complainant’s website. Respondent also had actual notice of Complainant’s rights, evidenced by Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark COZYCHIC, with rights dating back to at least 2004, and uses it to market luxury clothing, bedding, accessories, and household goods.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that offers products that are not related to Complainant.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s COZYCHIC mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “boutique” and the “.store” top-level domain. Simply adding a generic word and a descriptive top-level domain is not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also DD IP Holder LLC v. Phill Aspden, FA 1603215 (Forum Apr. 8, 2015) (finding that the disputed domain name <dunkin.coffee> is identical to Complainant's DUNKIN COFFEE registered mark, as gTLDs that reference goods or services offered under the registered mark may be taken into account). The Panel therefore finds that the <cozychicboutique.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COZYCHIC mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name: the Panel may reference WHOIS information in order to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Even if the respondent is registered as the disputed domain name, the Panel may find respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in the absence of affirmative evidence supporting the registration. See Moneytree, Inc. v. Matt Sims / MoneyTreeNow, FA1501001602721 (Forum Mar. 3, 2015) (finding that even though the respondent had listed “Matt Sims” of “MoneyTreeNow” as registrant of the <moneytreenow.com> domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), because he had failed to list any additional affirmative evidence beyond the WHOIS information). Here, the WHOIS information shows that the registrant is “charline ross/cozychicboutique”, but there is no affirmative evidence that Respondent is known as “cozychicboutique”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website offers for sale products that are not related to those of Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute 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 also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make for a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website promotes products unrelated to Complainant’s business. Such use of a domain name can demonstrate a respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, Case No. FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant’s trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cozychicboutique.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page