national arbitration forum

DECISION

 

ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. v. Stefan Hansmann

Claim Number: FA1104001381755

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sujata Chaudhri and Jeffrey H. Epstein of Cowen, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA.  Respondent is Stefan Hansmann (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

 

The domain name at issue is <qvc.co>, registered with Internetx Gmbh.

 

PANEL

 

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge he has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Fernando Triana, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 5, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 5, 2011.

 

On April 6, 2011, Internetx Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <qvc.co> domain name is registered with Internetx Gmbh and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Internetx Gmbh has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internetx Gmbh 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 8, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 28, 2011 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@qvc.co.  Also on April 8, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 22, 2011.

 

On April 26, 2011, Complainant timely filed an additional submission.

 

On April 26, 2011, Respondent timely filed an additional response.

 

On April 26, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Fernando Triana, Esq. as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

 

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

 

There are two Complainants in this matter: QVC, Inc. and ER Marks, Inc. Complainant QVC, Inc. claims to wholly own its subsidiary ER Marks, Inc. Whereas the former owns the QVC mark outside the United States of America, the latter owns it in the United States of America.  ER Marks, Inc. acquired these marks by assignment from QVC, Inc. in 2003.

 

The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e).  UDRP Rule 3(a) states: “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.”  The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines: “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”

 

Prior panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one if they can show a sufficient link to each other[1]. In addition, prior Panels have treated two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks comprised by the disputed domain names[2]

 

The sole Panelist finds that no evidence was submitted to prove that ER Marks, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of QVC, Inc. as claimed.

 

However, Exhibit E includes Certificates of Registration and renewal certificates of the QVC mark in the United States of America, the European Union, China, and the United Kingdom.  They confirm that both Complainants hold rights in the mark QVC, which is entirely comprised in the <qvc.co> domain name (further analysis in the “DISCUSSION” section).

 

Therefore, the Panel will consider the Complainants as a single entity in this proceeding.  They will be collectively referred to as “Complainant”.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

 

A.     Complainant:

 

This Complainant is based upon Complainant’s long-time use and ownership of the mark QVC in connection with direct response television retail shopping services in the United States of America, China and 43 more jurisdictions. Complainant also relies on the substantial public recognition and goodwill of the QVC mark all over the world.

 

Accordingly, Complainant’s main contentions are as follows:

 

1.      The disputed domain name is legally identical to the QVC mark because the former incorporates the latter in its entirety.

 

2.      Respondent’s name is not QVC, nor is he commonly known by the QVC name.  Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor has he been authorized by Complainant to register the disputed domain name. 

 

3.      Respondent should have had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s exclusive rights in the mark due before registering the domain name due to its “long –standing use and fame”.

 

4.      Respondent registered the disputed domain name to capitalize on the fame and recognition of the Complainant’s QVC mark. 

 

5.      Respondent’s use of the domain name to resolve to a website that features adult-oriented content is evidence of bad faith registration and use.

 

6.      Respondent is a cyber squatter that has registered domain names that incorporate famous marks or misspellings of famous marks.  This pattern is also evidence of bad faith use and registration.

 

B. Respondent:

 

Respondent responded to the Complainant’s contentions as follows:

 

1.      The disputed domain was registered with the purpose of launching a new adult video site named “Quality Video Collection and “QVC” is an acronym of this name. Its development is almost finished and it will be launched within 1 or 2 months. In the meanwhile, it was forwarded to <searchtubes.com> since Respondent needs to earn money for a living.

 

2.      Respondent did not have prior knowledge of the QVC mark and doubts that anyone else in China has ever had it.

 

3.      Respondent has provided Chinese customers with domain name registration services since 2002 acting as “proxy” which is fully legal, unlike using “reverse Whois lookup” which can only be done by violating the terms of use of the different registries Whois services.

 

B.     Additional Submissions

 

Complainant filed the following additional submission: 

 

1.      The mark QVC enjoys a high degree of visibility among consumers in China due to the Complainant’s and its Chinese subsidiary’s efforts to promote it in this country for over a decade.

 

2.      Since the Complaint was filed, Respondent changed the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Now it bears the name “Quality Video Collection” and the alleged QVC abbreviation in logo form.

 

3.      Respondent cannot be a proxy service since the Whois records of the listing of domain names submitted as evidence show his contact information, whereas the purpose of a proxy service is precisely to protect the registrant’s identity and privacy.

 

4.      Reverse Whois searches are usually used by complainants in UDPR proceedings and their results have been considered in determining a respondent’s conduct of registering domain names that incorporate third-party marks.

 

Respondent filed the following additional response:

 

1.      Developing a website is a time-consuming task.

 

2.      The kind of promotion of the QVC mark in China according to the evidence submitted by Complainant does not show that the QVC mark is known in China.

 

FINDINGS

 

Paragraph 15 (a) of the Rules of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“the Rules”) instructs the Panelist 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”. Likewise, paragraph 10 (d) of “The Rules” provides that: “The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”.

 

DISCUSSION

 

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."

 

Likewise, paragraph 10(d) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, provides that: “the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.”

 

The Panel wants to make special emphasis to the evidence filed by the parties to prove their assertions, which has been thoroughly studied in order to determine its relevance and weight in arriving to a decision. The Panel wishes to clarify that the statements that have been accompanied by evidence have been given more importance than the mere statements made by the parties without further demonstration to its existence.

 

In addition, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant proves 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.

However, UDRP Panels have unanimously consented that requiring the Complainant to prove the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name is often an impossible task.  It is not only a negative but also demands access to information that is mostly within the knowledge of the Respondent.

In the Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Limited, D2001-0121 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001), the Panel stated that:

 

“Is the Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. It involves the Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel’s view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head.”

Therefore, a Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once this prima facie case is made, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent, who must prove those rights or legitimate interests. If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have met the second element of Policy ¶ 4(a).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Policy ¶ 4(a) requires the existence of a trademark or a service mark. The industrial property rights are only acquired by registration before the competent office in many jurisdictions of the world.

 

Complainant alleges that it owns rights in the QVC mark in approximately 45 countries and jurisdictions all over the world, including the United States of America, China, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. Some of those certificates of registration and renewal were submitted as evidence, as shown in Exhibit E

 

Complainant contends that the Domain Name <qvc.co> is “legally identical” to the QVC marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(1) because they are wholly incorporated in it.

 

The worldwide-accepted definition of a trademark involves the concept of distinctive force as the most relevant element. Said force gives the sign the capability to identify the products or services of its owner and differentiate them from the product and services of other participants in the market.

 

When a sign is registered as a mark, it is surrounded by a presumption of sufficient distinctive force, and the owner is granted with an exclusive right over the mark, which entitles him to prevent any third party from using the registered sign or any other sign confusingly similar to it.

 

However, the UDRP does not discriminate between registered and unregistered trademarks[3] and thus, it is well established that a Complainant need not own a registered mark to invoke the Policy. It is sufficient in certain common law jurisdictions that Complainant has rights in an unregistered mark as to deserve legal protection. For instance, Complainant’s first use of the QVC mark in the United States of America dates back to December 29, 1986, as stated in the Certificate of Registration No. 1,455,889 issued by the USPTO and included in Exhibit E Thus, Complainant established rights in the QVC mark based on its use in commerce, and also through registrations in several countries.

 

The registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive[4].. 

 

Complainant’s certificates of registration appear to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of its ownership of the mark and the exclusive right to use it in connection with the stated goods and services.

 

Therefore, the Panelist concludes that Complainant has demonstrated registered rights in the QVC marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(1).

 

Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption[5] and in this case, he has failed to contest Complainant's assertions regarding its trademark rights. 

 

Respondent actually agrees on the fact that the <qvc.co> domain name is “similar” to the QVC mark, but considers that this abbreviation may stand for different meanings including the alleged name of his website “Quality Video Collection”.

 

It is true that an abbreviation may stand for different meanings as it is also true that a person may distort an abbreviation to adapt it to a specific meaning. The Panelist believes that Respondent distorted the QVC abbreviation for the purposes of his Response in an attempt to make it stand for “Quality Video Collection”.

 

It is irrelevant if a mark is made up of an abbreviation that lacks of significance.  The mark’s recognition and positioning among consumers will ultimately provide it with a meaning: the mark itself and their judgment of it. Beyond the infringement of their exclusive rights, this is what really concerns owners around the world when third parties use their marks without their authorization.

 

The Panelist wishes to clarify that according to the Policy, in the end what really matter is the existence of a mark registration and that this mark is either identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain. In fact, Policy 4¶(a)(1) considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

 

 

Before establishing whether or not the <qvc.co> domain name is identical to the Complainant’s QVC marks, the sole Panelist wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domains (gTLD), i.e., “.com,” “.biz,” “.edu,” “.org,” “.co” cannot be considered when determining if the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark. Neither the addition of country code top-level domains (ccTLD), i.e., “.co.,” “.de,” “.cr,” “.es,” nor the insertion of a gTLD have a distinctive function.

 

UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the “.com” (gTLD), in the disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights. In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico, D2000-0477 (WIPO July 20, 2000), the Panel stated that: “the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ‘.com’ is one of only several such gTLDs, and ‘.com’ does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services.”  This same conclusion applies to the “.co” ccTLD.

 

Therefore, in the present case, the disputed domain does reproduce entirely the Complainant’s QVC mark which makes them identical. The reproduction of the Complainant’s mark in its whole is sufficient grounds to establish that the disputed domain name is identical to the QVC mark[6].

 

Complainant emphasizes throughout the Complaint and the Additional Submission on the substantial public recognition and “incalculable” goodwill of the QVC mark over the world.  Furthermore, Complainant asserts that the QVC mark is famous, and cites the WIPO Case No. D2007-1782[7] as evidence of this condition.

 

The sole Panelist agrees on the huge effort that Complainant has made to promote its trademark in different jurisdictions including China, yet he does not find the evidence submitted sufficient to declare it was famous at the time the disputed domain name was registered (September 2010).

 

The Panelist cannot accept the evidence of the QVC mark’s fame in 2008 as evidence of its fame in 2010 and 2011. The famous or well-known character of a mark must be analyzed within a specific time and territory.  Thus, the analysis conducted in 2008 will not necessarily lead to the same conclusion in 2010 and 2011.

 

However, this Panel concludes that the Domain Name <qvc.co> is identical to the Complainant’s QVC mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(1).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) determines that the following circumstances in particular but without limitation, if found by the sole Panelist to be present, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest to the Domain Name:

 

(1) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(2) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(3) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <qvc.co> and actually proves its rights and legitimate interest in it. The sole Panelist accepts this assertion as a prima facie case made by Complainant that shifts the burden of proof to Respondent.

 

Respondent claims to have legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered with the purpose of launching a new adult video site named “Quality Video Collection”. Respondent asserts that the development of his website is almost finished and that it will be launched within 1 to 2 months.

 

However, Respondent failed to rebut Complainant’s assertions since just declaring his plans for future commercial use of the disputed domain name is not sufficient evidence for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(1)[8]. Respondent did not submit evidence of the preparatory stage that usually precedes any business. He did not prove any expenditure he has incurred but those of the registration of the disputed domain name (which he did not prove but one may assume). He did not prove what exactly he has been working on and his progresses. He did not explain to the Panel the way he will profit from the website or any business plan.

 

In addition, Respondent’s name is “Stefan Hansmann”, which has no relation whatsoever with the letters QVC that make up the disputed domain name. Respondent also failed to prove his legitimate interest in the domain name as he did not show that he is commonly known by the name “QVC”[9]. Indeed, it is clear for this Panel that in his own allegations, Respondent asserts that he is known as “Stefan Hansmann” instead of “QVC” in his alleged business of assisting Chinese customers with the registration of domain names, since those domain names are registered in his name.  Of course, this alleged business is worthy of a further analysis.

 

Respondent confessed to be profiting from the website “Searchtubes” to which the disputed domain name resolves to.  He actually said he is “no charity” and he “needs to make money for a living”.  Profiting from a domain name is not reprehensible itself, but it becomes so when said profit derives from the intent to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

At this point, the Panelist believes that the Respondent’s choice to register the <qvc.co> domain name with the “.co” ccTLD issue becomes relevant for the discussion.  Complainant alleges that Respondent did not have any conceivable reason to choose the “.co” “country code extension of Colombia”, and concludes this choice reveals his intention to capitalize on the fame and reputation of the QVC mark.  Complainant owns the <qvc.com> and <iqvc.com> domain names since 1994 and 1995, as shown in the Whois search results submitted as Exhibit B.  Thus, Complainant believes that an Internet User intending to access QVC’s website at qvc.com could easily mistype <qvc.co>.

 

Respondent contends that he chose the “.co” ccTLD because it was being promoted as the next “.com” gTLD. Also, Respondent wonders why Complainant refrained from registering the <qvc.co> domain name in during the sunrise and landrush period if they were really interested in it.

 

It is true that since July 2010 the registration of “.co” ccTLD was available to the general public.  This new gTLD was actually launched as the new “.com gTLD”, since “.co” may be used as the abbreviation of “company”, “commerce”, “community”, “content”, “collaboration”, “connection”, etc. 

 

Yet, the Panelist highlights that the “.co” ccTLD may also be a misspelling of the “.com” gTLD. The use of a domain name identical to the recognized and positioned QVC mark plus the use of the “.co” ccTLD that is likely to be a misspelling of the .com gTLD cannot be a random decision.

 

The sole Panelist conducted a search on the Google search engine on May 5, 2011 of the “qvc” abbreviation. The three first results referred to the Complainant, while the fourth one referred to the Respondent’s site. The fifth and following results referred to the Complainant again.  These results show that Internet users may be misleadingly diverted to the Respondent’s website while looking for information about the Complainant’s services, mark, etc.

 

Therefore, the Panelist concludes that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(c)(3).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(1) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(2) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(3) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(4) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

Complainant contends Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

The Panelist does not find applicable to the case the first three circumstances of Policy ¶ 4(b) but rather the last one.

 

Complainant conducted a reverse Whois search to prove that Respondent has registered domain names incorporating famous marks and misspellings of famous marks and includes its results as Exhibit J.  These results show that indeed Respondent owns registrations for domain names reproducing famous marks and their misspellings such as Google, Skype and Disney.   

 

Respondent argues that reverse Whois searches are illegal and requests the Panel to ignore Exhibit J.

 

Reverse Whois searches are not illegal procedures despite Respondent’s futile allegations against conclusive evidence of his bad faith registration and use.  These searches are helpful to find domain names registered in the name of a specific individual, thus they have become powerful tools to detect cyber squatters and trademark infringements.

 

As mentioned above, the evidence submitted by Complainant shows a pattern of Respondent that makes of him a cyber squatter. The Panelist believes that Respondent’s allegation of his supposed “domain name registration service for Chinese costumers” is false. Actually, the Panelist is convinced that Respondent made up such “business” only for the purpose to disguise his real business: cyber squatting.

 

Prior Panels have found: “a clear pattern of conduct in this behavior, as it has been evidenced that Mr. Turner has registered several domain names, bearing registered trademarks, and none of the trademarks registered belong to him. This can be considered as evidence of Respondent’s intention of taking advantage of a third party’s goodwill in order to divert and mislead the web surfer to its web pages and services[10].

 

In addition, the <qvc.co> domain name is a clear mistype of the <qvc.com> domain name and places this case in the typo squatting field as a specific kind of cyber squatting.  It does not matter that the mistype falls on the gTLD instead of the mark, the result of the typo squatting is the same: Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the QVC mark attempting to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain.

 

The sole Panelist also draws the Parties’ attention to the fact that Respondent has not developed his so called adult video site “Quality Video Collection” despite the fact that the <qvc.co> domain name was registered eight months ago.  Prior Panels have found bad faith registration and use where respondents have not used their domain names for eighteen months or so. The sole Panelist believes that eight months is also a reasonable time to at least be able to prove the Respondent’s intent to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, which Respondent failed to do. On the contrary, this Panel finds that the time the <qvc.co> domain name has been registered and resolving to the “Searchtubes” site instead to the Respondent’s own site is conclusive evidence of his bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(3).

 

In addition, prior panels[11] have found that attracting Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(4).

 

Complainant also emphasizes the fact that the <qvc.co> domain name is identical to the QVC trademark, which is evidence of the likelihood of confusion created by the Respondent with the Complainant’s mark as to the “source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement” of the <qvc.co> domain name.

 

Complainant presumes that Respondent had constructive knowledge of the QVC mark at the time of registration of the <qvc.co> domain name.

 

The sole Panelist cannot conclude that Respondent had constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s mark since the fame and well-known character of the QVC mark was not duly proven.   The sole Panelist presumes, however, Respondent had actual knowledge of the QVC marks, which explains the identity between the <qvc.co> domain name and the QVC mark.

 

Therefore, this identity plus the facts that the disputed domain name was registered as an attempt to attract Internet users to the site to which it resolves to, and that this site displays adult-oriented content, is conclusive evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.

 

The sole Panelist wishes to add that Respondent intended to deceive him by changing the website to which the disputed domain name resolves after receiving the Written Notice of Complaint. As Complainant proved in the additional submission, Respondent displayed the name “Quality Video Collection” followed by the QVC logo.  This change does not prove his allegations of legitimate interests in the disputed domain nor a bona fide offering of goods and services.  This change actually convinces the sole Panelist that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Prior panels have found likewise[12], also based on the respondent’s pattern of registering someone else’s trademarks in domain names, which has been duly proved in this case.

 

This Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN 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 <qvc.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Fernando Triana, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  May 6, 2011

 



[1] See Vancouver Organizing Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Hardeep Malik., FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006).

[2] See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Inv., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003),

[3] See MatchNet PLC. V. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (citing The British Broad. Corp. v. Jaime Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000)).

[4] See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO May 5, 2002).

[5] See EAuto, LLC v. Triple S. Auto Parks d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enter., Inc., D2000-0047 (WIPO Mar. 24, 2000).

[6] See Grundfos CBS, Inc. v. Elaine Doyle and Phoenix Pumps, Inc., D2006-1564 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2007).

 

[7] See QVC, Inc. and ER Marks, Inc. v. WHOISGuard, where the Panel stated: “The fame of the Complainants’ business under the QVC mark in relation to electronic shopping services is such that the Domain Names can only have been selected with the Complainants’ business firmly in mind. Section 4 above gives an idea of the wide market coverage achieved by the Complainants under their QVC mark”.

[8] See Document Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Comm. Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000).

[9] See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006).

[10] See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Michael Turner, FA 349013 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec 16, 2004).

 

[11] See CopsPlus, Inc. v. Christopher Patzer / Buckstaff Public Safety, FA 1371377 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 25, 2011) (citing Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) where the panel stated: “[W]hatever the motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain names to a [adult-oriented] site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).

[12] See ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. v. Isolutionindia c/o Sujit Kumar Singh, FA 1377726 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 30, 2011).

 


 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page