DECISION

 

Lord & Taylor IP LLC v. sohyun bue

Claim Number: FA2205001997535

PARTIES

Complainant is Lord & Taylor IP LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter, Missouri.  Respondent is sohyun bue (“Respondent”), US.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lordandtailorusa.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 23, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 23, 2022.

 

On May 24, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lordandtailorusa.com> 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 May 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 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@lordandtailorusa.com.  Also on May 27, 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 June 27, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a New York-based clothing and fashion company.  Complainant claims rights in the LORD & TAYLOR mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,960,413 registered March 5, 1996).  The disputed domain name <lordandtailorusa.com> is confusingly similar because it incorporates the Complainant’s mark, differing only through an intentional misspelling of the LORD & TAYLOR mark, replacing the ampersand with the word “and” and adding the geographic term “usa” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).


Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <lordandtailorusa.com> domain name.  Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the LORD & TAYLOR mark in any way.  Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name to host pay-per-click links to third-party websites.  Furthermore, Respondent is engaging in typosquatting.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent used a privacy service to register the Domain Name.  Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain.  Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LORD & TAYLOR mark given the mark’s notoriety and use to which the Domain Name has been put.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the LORD & TAYLOR mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LORD & TAYLOR mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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."

 

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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant asserts rights in the LORD & TAYLOR mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,960,413 registered March 5, 1996).  Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that the <lordandtailorusa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LORD & TAYLOR mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the LORD & TAYLOR mark (replacing the “y” with and “i” and replacing the ampersand with the word “and”), adding the geographic term “usa” and the “.com” gTLD.  These changes are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the LORD & TAYLOR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Pullman & Comley, LLC v. JONATHAN REICH., FA 1703742 (Forum Dec. 13, 2016) (”Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely eliminating spacing between words of the mark, the addition of the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), and the incorporation of “and” in place of the ampersand.  These are not alterations that distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.”); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name”).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).  The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the LORD & TAYLOR mark.  Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.  WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged.  See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists “sohyun bue” as registrant of record.  Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name resolves to a parking page featuring pay-per-click advertisements, including advertisements for clothing and suits that compete with Complainant’s clothing retail services and are unconnected to any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name.  This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark DanielsFA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).   

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name (April 5, 2022), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s LORD & TAYLOR mark, which had been in use for over 100 years at the time.   It would be unlikely for a party to acquire a domain name that is confusingly similar to the well-known LORD & TAYLOR mark (that had been in use in connection with clothing retail for over 100 years), and redirect it to a pay-per-click website with links offering clothing products, absent any awareness of Complainant and its LORD & TAYLOR mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its LORD & TAYLOR mark).  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s LORD & TAYLOR Mark for commercial gain by using the Domain Name to resolve to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain.  Use of an identical or confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <lordandtailorusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated:  June 28, 2022

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page