Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. L Lui
Claim Number: FA0601000630912
Complainant is Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation, 450 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 600, Glendale, CA 91203-2349, USA. Respondent is L. Lui (“Respondent”), 2/F Yally Industrial Building, 6 Yip Fat Street, Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong, HK.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <kouisvuitton.com>, <liousvitton.com>, <liousvuitton.com>, <liuisvuitton.com>, <liusvuitton.com>, <loiisvuitton.com>, <loisviton.com>, <loisvitton.com>, <loisviutton.com>, <loisvotton.com>, <loisvuiton.com>, <loisvuton.com>, <loisvutton.com>, <louiavitton.com>, <louiavuitton.com>, <louidvitton.com>, <louidvuitton.com>, <louiisvuitton.com>, <louis-viton.com>, <louis-vitton.com>, <louis-viutton.com>, <louis-vuiton.com>, <louis-vutton.com>, <louisbuiton.com>, <louisbuitton.com>, <louiscuiton.com>, <louiscuitton.com>, <louissvuitton.com>, <louisuitton.com>, <louisuvitton.com>, <louisviiton.com>, <louisviitton.com>, <louisvittom.com>, <louisvittone.com>, <louisviuton.com>, <louisviutton.net>, <louisvton.com>, <louisvtton.com>, <louisvuiton.net>, <louisvuitone.com>, <louisvuitron.com>, <louisvuittn.com>, <louisvuitto.com>, <louisvuittob.com>, <louisvuittone.com>, <louisvuittong.com>, <louisvuittonn.com>, <louisvuittoon.com>, <louisvuotton.com>, <louisvutiton.com>, <louisvutton.net>, <louisvuuton.com>, <louisvuutton.com>, <louisvvitton.com>, <louisvyitton.com>, <louosvuitton.com>, <lous-vuitton.com>, <lousivuiton.com>, <lousivuitton.com>, <lousivutton.com>, <lousviton.com>, <lousvitton.com>, <lousviutton.com>, <lousvuiton.com>, <lousvuittom.com>, <lousvutton.com>, <louusvuitton.com>, <lpuisvuitton.com>, <luisviton.com>, <luisviutton.com>, <luisvuton.com>, <luivuitton.com>, <luoisvitton.com>, <luosvuitton.com>, and <ouisvuitton.com>, registered with Enom, 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.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 18, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 19, 2006.
On January 20, 2006, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <kouisvuitton.com>, <liousvitton.com>, <liousvuitton.com>, <liuisvuitton.com>, <liusvuitton.com>, <loiisvuitton.com>, <loisviton.com>, <loisvitton.com>, <loisviutton.com>, <loisvotton.com>, <loisvuiton.com>, <loisvuton.com>, <loisvutton.com>, <louiavitton.com>, <louiavuitton.com>, <louidvitton.com>, <louidvuitton.com>, <louiisvuitton.com>, <louis-viton.com>, <louis-vitton.com>, <louis-viutton.com>, <louis-vuiton.com>, <louis-vutton.com>, <louisbuiton.com>, <louisbuitton.com>, <louiscuiton.com>, <louiscuitton.com>, <louissvuitton.com>, <louisuitton.com>, <louisuvitton.com>, <louisviiton.com>, <louisviitton.com>, <louisvittom.com>, <louisvittone.com>, <louisviuton.com>, <louisviutton.net>, <louisvton.com>, <louisvtton.com>, <louisvuiton.net>, <louisvuitone.com>, <louisvuitron.com>, <louisvuittn.com>, <louisvuitto.com>, <louisvuittob.com>, <louisvuittone.com>, <louisvuittong.com>, <louisvuittonn.com>, <louisvuittoon.com>, <louisvuotton.com>, <louisvutiton.com>, <louisvutton.net>, <louisvuuton.com>, <louisvuutton.com>, <louisvvitton.com>, <louisvyitton.com>, <louosvuitton.com>, <lous-vuitton.com>, <lousivuiton.com>, <lousivuitton.com>, <lousivutton.com>, <lousviton.com>, <lousvitton.com>, <lousviutton.com>, <lousvuiton.com>, <lousvuittom.com>, <lousvutton.com>, <louusvuitton.com>, <lpuisvuitton.com>, <luisviton.com>, <luisviutton.com>, <luisvuton.com>, <luivuitton.com>, <luoisvitton.com>, <luosvuitton.com>, and <ouisvuitton.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. 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 January 23, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 13, 2006 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@kouisvuitton.com, postmaster@liousvitton.com, postmaster@liousvuitton.com, postmaster@liuisvuitton.com, postmaster@liusvuitton.com, postmaster@loiisvuitton.com, postmaster@loisviton.com, postmaster@loisvitton.com, postmaster@loisviutton.com, postmaster@loisvotton.com, postmaster@loisvuiton.com, postmaster@loisvuton.com, postmaster@loisvutton.com, postmaster@louiavitton.com, postmaster@louiavuitton.com, postmaster@louidvitton.com, postmaster@louidvuitton.com, postmaster@louiisvuitton.com, postmaster@louis-viton.com, postmaster@louis-vitton.com, postmaster@louis-viutton.com, postmaster@louis-vuiton.com, postmaster@louis-vutton.com, postmaster@louisbuiton.com, postmaster@louisbuitton.com, postmaster@louiscuiton.com, postmaster@louiscuitton.com, postmaster@louissvuitton.com, postmaster@louisuitton.com, postmaster@louisuvitton.com, postmaster@louisviiton.com, postmaster@louisviitton.com, postmaster@louisvittom.com, postmaster@louisvittone.com, postmaster@louisviuton.com, postmaster@louisviutton.net, postmaster@louisvton.com, postmaster@louisvtton.com, postmaster@louisvuiton.net, postmaster@louisvuitone.com, postmaster@louisvuitron.com, postmaster@louisvuittn.com, postmaster@louisvuitto.com, postmaster@louisvuittob.com, postmaster@louisvuittone.com, postmaster@louisvuittong.com, postmaster@louisvuittonn.com, postmaster@louisvuittoon.com, postmaster@louisvuotton.com, postmaster@louisvutiton.com, postmaster@louisvutton.net, postmaster@louisvuuton.com, postmaster@louisvuutton.com, postmaster@louisvvitton.com, postmaster@louisvyitton.com, postmaster@louosvuitton.com, postmaster@lous-vuitton.com, postmaster@lousivuiton.com, postmaster@lousivuitton.com, postmaster@lousivutton.com, postmaster@lousviton.com, postmaster@lousvitton.com, postmaster@lousviutton.com, postmaster@lousvuiton.com, postmaster@lousvuittom.com, postmaster@lousvutton.com, postmaster@louusvuitton.com, postmaster@lpuisvuitton.com, postmaster@luisviton.com, postmaster@luisviutton.com, postmaster@luisvuton.com, postmaster@luivuitton.com, postmaster@luoisvitton.com, postmaster@luosvuitton.com, and postmaster@ouisvuitton.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 21, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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." 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., is an internationally-renowned retailer of luxury accessories, including purses, shoes, and clothing. Complainant has continuously sold and marketed its products in countries around the world for over one hundred years.
Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the LOUIS VUITTON mark worldwide, including several registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (U.S. Reg. No. 1,045,932, registered on August 10, 1976; U.S. Reg. No. 1,990,760, registered on August 6, 1996; U.S. Reg. No. 2,303,212, registered on December 28, 1999; U.S. Reg. No. 2,904,197, registered on November 23, 2004; and U.S. Reg. No. 2,909,003, registered on December 7, 2004). Complainant has also registered the LV LOUIS VUITTON, LOUIS VUITTON PARIS, and the VUITTON marks with the USPTO. Complainant registered the <vuitton.com> domain name on September 28, 1995, the <louisvuitton.com> domain name on February 18, 1997, and the <vuittonstore.com> domain name on November 15, 1999.
Respondent registered the <kouisvuitton.com>,
<liousvitton.com>, <liousvuitton.com>,
<liuisvuitton.com>, <liusvuitton.com>, <loiisvuitton.com>,
<loisviton.com>, <loisvitton.com>, <loisviutton.com>,
<loisvotton.com>, <loisvuiton.com>, <loisvuton.com>,
<loisvutton.com>, <louiavitton.com>, <louiavuitton.com>,
<louidvitton.com>, <louidvuitton.com>, <louiisvuitton.com>,
<louisbuiton.com>, <louisbuitton.com>, <louiscuiton.com>,
<louiscuitton.com>, <louissvuitton.com>, <louisuitton.com>,
<louisuvitton.com>, <louisviiton.com>, <louisviitton.com>,
<louisvittom.com>, <louisvittone.com>, <louisviuton.com>,
<louisvton.com>, <louisvtton.com>, <louisvuitone.com>,
<louisvuitron.com>, <louisvuittn.com>, <louisvuitto.com>,
<louisvuittob.com>, <louisvuittone.com>, <louisvuittong.com>, <louisvuittonn.com>,
<louisvuittoon.com>, <louisvuotton.com>,
<louisvutiton.com>, <louisvuuton.com>, <louisvuutton.com>,
<louisvvitton.com>, <louisvyitton.com>, <louosvuitton.com>, <lousivuiton.com>,
<lousivuitton.com>, <lousivutton.com>, <lousviton.com>,
<lousvitton.com>, <lousviutton.com>, <lousvuiton.com>,
<lousvuittom.com>, <lousvutton.com>, <louusvuitton.com>, <lpuisvuitton.com>,
<luisviton.com>, <luisviutton.com>, <luisvuton.com>,
<luivuitton.com>, <luoisvitton.com>, <luosvuitton.com>,
and <ouisvuitton.com> domain
names between October 18, 2003 and November 14, 2003, and the <louis-viton.com>,
<louis-vitton.com>, <louis-viutton.com>, <louis-vuiton.com>,
<louis-vutton.com>, <louisviutton.net>, <louisvuiton.net>,
<louisvutton.net>, and <lous-vuitton.com> domain
names between November 5, 2004 and December 10, 2004. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to maintain a web
directory displaying links to websites offering the products of Complainant and
its direct competitors, as well as links to unrelated content.
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 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.”).
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.
Complainant has established rights in the LOUIS VUITTON mark
through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA
198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark
registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see
also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), because each is a slight misspelling of the mark. Panels have held that the addition or deletion of words, letters, or hyphens, as well as the substitution and transposition of words or letters, do not distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (“The use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark."); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding that the domain names <tdwatergouse.com> and <dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to the complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark); see also
Pier 1 Imps., Inc. v. Success Work, D2001-0419 (WIPO May 16, 2001) (finding that the domain name <peir1.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's PIER 1 mark).
Moreover, Respondent’s disputed domain names are pronounced
in a similar fashion to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark. Panels have concluded that domain names that
misspell a complainant’s mark but have a similar pronunciation are confusingly
similar. See YAHOO! Inc. v. Murray,
D2000-1013 (WIPO Nov. 17, 2000) (finding that the domain name <yawho.com>
is confusingly similar to the complainant’s YAHOO mark); see also Pfizer
Inc. v. Phizer's Antiques, D2002-0410 (WIPO July 3, 2002) (finding the
<phizer.com> domain name phonetically equivalent and
confusingly similar to the PFIZER mark).
Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domains
“.net” and “.com” to Complaint’s LOUIS VUITTON mark do not make Respondent’s
disputed domain names distinctive.
Panels have held that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when
conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.
See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
(finding that the 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); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness
Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he 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 . . . .").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO
June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke
any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on
Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). However, the Panel will now examine the
record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under
Policy ¶ 4(c).
There is no evidence in the record suggesting that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, Respondent has not established
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain
name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the
WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that
Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name
‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
In addition, Respondent is using
the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS
VUITTON mark, to operate a web directory with links to third-party websites
offering the products of Complainant and its direct competitors. Such use of the disputed domain names
for commercial gain by misdirecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s
products to other websites not affiliated with Complainant but selling similar
goods does not provide evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S
Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20,
2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by
diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to
those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight,
FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not
using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to
divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with
those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Glaxo Group Ltd.
v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the
respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶¶
4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage
of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial
site).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names, which are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark, to attract Internet
users to a web directory displaying links to third-party websites offering the
products of Complainant and its competitors, as well as to unrelated content. The Panel infers that Respondent receives
click-through fees for diverting consumers to these websites. Therefore, Respondent is taking advantage of
the likelihood of confusion between Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s
mark and capitalizing on the goodwill associated with the mark. The Panel finds that such use constitutes
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name
resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the
complainant’s famous mark); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA
127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits
from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name
resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the
complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000)
(finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to
resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is
likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of
or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).
Moreover, Respondent’s various misspellings of Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON mark in the disputed domain names indicate that Respondent is typosquatting. Typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also K.R. USA, INC. v. SO SO DOMAINS, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <philadelphiaenquirer.com> and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names capitalized on the typographical error of Internet users seeking the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks, evincing typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kouisvuitton.com>, <liousvitton.com>, <liousvuitton.com>, <liuisvuitton.com>, <liusvuitton.com>, <loiisvuitton.com>, <loisviton.com>, <loisvitton.com>, <loisviutton.com>, <loisvotton.com>, <loisvuiton.com>, <loisvuton.com>, <loisvutton.com>, <louiavitton.com>, <louiavuitton.com>, <louidvitton.com>, <louidvuitton.com>, <louiisvuitton.com>, <louis-viton.com>, <louis-vitton.com>, <louis-viutton.com>, <louis-vuiton.com>, <louis-vutton.com>, <louisbuiton.com>, <louisbuitton.com>, <louiscuiton.com>, <louiscuitton.com>, <louissvuitton.com>, <louisuitton.com>, <louisuvitton.com>, <louisviiton.com>, <louisviitton.com>, <louisvittom.com>, <louisvittone.com>, <louisviuton.com>, <louisviutton.net>, <louisvton.com>, <louisvtton.com>, <louisvuiton.net>, <louisvuitone.com>, <louisvuitron.com>, <louisvuittn.com>, <louisvuitto.com>, <louisvuittob.com>, <louisvuittone.com>, <louisvuittong.com>, <louisvuittonn.com>, <louisvuittoon.com>, <louisvuotton.com>, <louisvutiton.com>, <louisvutton.net>, <louisvuuton.com>, <louisvuutton.com>, <louisvvitton.com>, <louisvyitton.com>, <louosvuitton.com>, <lous-vuitton.com>, <lousivuiton.com>, <lousivuitton.com>, <lousivutton.com>, <lousviton.com>, <lousvitton.com>, <lousviutton.com>, <lousvuiton.com>, <lousvuittom.com>, <lousvutton.com>, <louusvuitton.com>, <lpuisvuitton.com>, <luisviton.com>, <luisviutton.com>, <luisvuton.com>, <luivuitton.com>, <luoisvitton.com>, <luosvuitton.com>, and <ouisvuitton.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: March 7, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum