DECISION

 

Jacques Marie Mage, Inc. v. Marielle Hayes

Claim Number: FA2604002218593

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Jacques Marie Mage, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Dax Alvarez of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Marielle Hayes ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jacquesmariemage.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 29, 2026; Forum received payment on April 29, 2026.

 

On April 29, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 April 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 20, 2026 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@jacquesmariemage.net. Also on April 30, 2026, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 21, 2026.

 

On May 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant owns and operates a highly successful luxury goods brand, Jacques Marie Mage, renowned for its limited-edition, handcrafted eyewear, jewelry, leather goods, and accessories. Complainant was founded in 2014 by designer Jérôme Jacques Marie Mage and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. It is the owner of distinctive and well-known U.S. trademark registrations for JACQUES MARIE MAGE including Reg. No. 4486111 dated February 18, 2014 and Reg. No. 4499024 dated March 18, 2014. It also owns U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 99185483 for the mark JMM.

 

The <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name, registered on July 13, 2025, is identical or confusingly similar to the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark adding only the ".net" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it redirects users to another placeholder website at <jmmvault.com> that displays the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark along with content that bears no relation to Complainant.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and based on the above-mentioned activity.

 

B. Respondent

Complainant's case relies primarily on inference drawn from screenshots and assumptions regarding intent, rather than direct evidence of abusive registration or commercial exploitation by Respondent. Respondent has used, or intended to use, the Domain Name in connection with a noncommercial, informational, early-stage draft fan website concept relating to publicly available information about Complainant's products and design history.

 

FINDINGS

- Complainant has proven its ownership of rights in the JACQUES MARIE MAGE trademark and the <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

- Respondent has not demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known thereby and it has not demonstrated preparations to use the domain name for a legitimate fan site but, rather, uses the domain name to redirect users to another website that displays Complainant's mark and contains unrelated placeholder content; and

-  The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark, the domain name itself gives no indication that it may lead to a fan site, and its redirection to another site that displays the mark along with unrelated placeholder content disrupts Complainant's business.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in its JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates and therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has also submitted the particulars of a pending USPTO application for the mark JMM but this will not be considered by the Panel.¹ 

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark in its entirety and only adds the ".net" TLD. The use of an entire trademark and the addition only of a TLD is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an asserted mark. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) ("There can be no question that Respondent's domain name <ROLLERBLADE.NET> is identical to Complainant's trademark 'Rollerblade', and this Panel so finds. It is already well established that the specific 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 thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Marielle Hayes" and Respondent does not claim that it is known otherwise. Further, Complainant specifically states that it "has never authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's [JACQUES MARIE MAGE] Marks" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, it submits evidence that Respondent is resolving the domain name to a different website that displays the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark and placeholder content that bears no relation to Complainant's business. For its part, Respondent states that it "has used, or intended to use, the Domain Name in connection with a noncommercial, informational, early-stage draft fan website concept relating to publicly available information about Complainant's products and design history." UDRP Panels have recognized that legitimate fan sites, which engage in nominative fair use of a trademark, may satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 10.02-B.5.i (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2025) ("Paragraph 4(c)(iii) carves out two areas for protection: 'Noncommercial and fair use.' Noncommercial can, include for example, fan sites which if authentic are also fair…") As noted, a claimed fan site must be authentic and in satisfying this standard it is well accepted that "a respondent's fan or informational site must be active, genuine, and clearly distinct from any official complainant site." WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, ("WIPO Overview 3.1") at 2.7.1. However, "[w]here a domain name that is identical to a trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld>) is being used in relation to a genuine fan site, panels have tended to find that a general right to operate a fan or informational site (even one that is supportive of the mark owner) does not extend to registering or using a domain name that is identical to the complainant's trademark, particularly as such an impersonation of the domain name may be misunderstood by Internet users as being somehow sponsored or endorsed by the trademark owner." Id. at 2.7.2. Finally, if a website is not yet operational, Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) requires that a Respondent make "demonstrable preparations" to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Here, Complainant's evidence shows that Respondent automatically redirects users who browse to the <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name to a different site at <jmmvault.com> whose ownership is unknown. This page displays the header "JAQUES MARIE MAGE VAULT" followed by the title "Recipe Of The Day, Tasty Fluffy Pancakes" and sections titled "Recipes of the Week", "Recipes by Category", "Our Qualified Chefs", and "Download Our App". The footer of the page indicates that it is a WordPress Theme. Submitted screenshots of the <jmmvault.com> "About" and "Contact" pages show placeholder text such as "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit." Respondent asserts that this is "an unfinished draft website" but it provides no further information or evidence regarding the site or its plans for the site beyond stating that the disputed domain name will be used in connection with a "concept relating to publicly available information about Complainant's products and design history." The Panel finds that it is not an active or genuine site. Respondent states that "Complainant's screenshots do not establish who controlled, authored, or deployed the referenced content" but the Panel finds this unpersuasive as it is Respondent, as the owner of the domain name, who has ultimate control of how the domain name functions and it must take responsibility for the content of any external website to which it chooses to redirect the domain name. Gold Medal Travel Group plc v. Damir Kruzicevic, D2007-1902 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2008) ("It should not be open to Respondent to profit but avoid responsibility for the content of his site merely by contracting out its use to a third party when he knows the use to which it will be put."); Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. GRUPO SA Ltd Co / Grupo S.A. Ltd Co., FA 985605 (Forum Mar. 30, 2022) ("Panels have found that respondents are ultimately responsible for the content of their resolving webpages"). Further, the fact that the <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name copies the entirety of the JAQUES MARIE MAGE mark, adding only a TLD, provides no help to Respondent as it is not clearly distinct from Complainant's official <jacquesmariemage.com> site. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name was registered on July 13, 2025, nearly ten months before Complainant initiated this dispute, yet it has done little with the site in that time other than add the trademark to the header.²

 

Upon consideration of all of the arguments and submissions in this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case which has not been adequately rebutted by Respondent. Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has not shown that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent had prior knowledge of its rights in the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark at the time of registering the <jaquesmariemage.net> domain name. A respondent's actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in an asserted mark prior to registering a disputed domain name can form a foundation upon which to base an argument for bad faith. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") See also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant"). Complainant asserts that it is "one of the most recognizable names in the luxury eyewear industry" and that "the JACQUES MARIE MAGE® marks are well known." In support, it submits screenshots from its own <jacquesmariemage.com> website as well as copies of news articles from GQ and Business of Fashion magazines, each featuring JACQUES MARIE MAGE eyewear. While this rather limited evidence provides some indication that the brand has gained a reputation, the Panel finds that Respondent's own statement claiming an intent to provide "information about Complainant's products and design history" and the appearance of the JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves carries greater weight in showing that prior knowledge of the mark exists. Based on the available evidence and statements, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent seeks "to disrupt the business of a competitor" and "intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his web site by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks…" under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). It provides screenshots and notes that "the Disputed Domain redirects to <jmmvault.com>, which resolves to a webpage displaying unrelated and largely inactive content, including nonfunctional hyperlinks and placeholder 'lorem ipsum' text. The site purports to offer content, such as recipes (e.g., 'Tasty Fluffy Pancakes'), yet fails to provide operative links or any substantive material pertaining to recipes." While the Panel finds no direct evidence of any commercial activity on Respondent's website, it notes that the scenarios of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exhaustive and that bad faith can be found based on a totality of the circumstances of a case including the non-use of a domain name or resolution to a placeholder page.  United States Steel Corporation v. Mehmet Celik, FA 2161939 (Forum July 16, 2025) (where Respondent's site uses Complainant's mark and displays "the nonsensical Lorem ipsum dummy text", the Panel found bad faith noting that "[t]his does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties.") While, as stated above, Complainant's brand reputation evidence is rather slim, the Panel notes that, by its own statement, Respondent specifically intended to refer to Complainant's  JACQUES MARIE MAGE mark and has, many months after registering the disputed domain name, failed to host any content or provide any evidence that could support its claimed intention of creating a fan site. Furthermore, the disputed domain name copies the entirety of the mark and differs from Complainant's own website address only by the use of a different TLD. Under the circumstances of this case, the disputed domain name does not meet the standards set out in Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith under 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 <jacquesmariemage.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: May 25, 2026