Complainant is Victoria's Secret et al, Columbus, OH, USA ("Complainant") represented by Lisa Dunner, of McDermott, Will & Emery. Respondent is Catherine E. White, Seminole, FL, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <victor-victoriassecret.com> registered with Council of Internet Registrars (CORE).

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.

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 27, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 23, 2001.

On January 30, 2001, Council of Internet Registrars (CORE) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <victor-victoriassecret.com> is registered with Council of Internet Registrars (CORE) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Council of Internet Registrars (CORE) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Council of Internet Registrars (CORE) registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On February 1, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 21, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@victor-victoriassecret.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On July 23, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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." 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

The <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOMP mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name.

Respondent registered and used the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Since 1977, Complainant has used its famous VICTORIA’S SECRET federally registered mark in connection with its retail stores. The VICTORIA’S SECRET mark is registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 20, 1981 as Registration No. 1,146,199.

Respondent registered the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name on December 27, 1999, and has not used the disputed domain name for any purpose since its registration.

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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name contains Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in its entirety combined with the generic word "victor." The addition of a generic word to a famous mark makes a disputed domain name confusingly similar to to a Complainant’s mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that "[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY" and therefore Policy 4(a)(i) is satisfied).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent has failed to come forward to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name. See 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").

Furthermore, there is a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to a disputed domain name where Respondent fails to submit a response. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Respondent’s passive holding of the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See American Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way).

There is no evidence in the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known by the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

Furthermore, there is no evidence that demonstrates Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial, or fair use of the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected websites does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain name).

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s passive holding supports a finding of bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Furthermore, because of the distinctive nature of Complainant’s famous VICTORIA’S SECRET mark, it may be assumed that Respondent had notice of Complainant’s mark at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain names. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration). See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the "domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’").

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three of the elements under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <victor-victoriassecret.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.