Claim Number: FA0903001250363
Complainant is Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise
R. Blakeslee, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <victoriassecrret.com>, registered with Dynadot, Llc.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 3, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 4, 2009.
On March 4, 2009, Dynadot, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <victoriassecrret.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, Llc 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 March 11, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 31, 2009 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@victoriassecrret.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 8, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s
<victoriassecrret.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecrret.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <victoriassecrret.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant,
Respondent registered the <victoriassecrret.com> domain name on September 4, 2008. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website.
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently
established rights in the
Respondent’s <victoriassecrret.com>
domain name contains a common misspelling of Complainant’s
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
At the outset, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds that the failure
of Respondent’s confusingly similar <victoriassecrret.com>
domain name to resolve to any website is
evidence that Respondent has not made a bona
fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom,
FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had
no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the
domain name); see also U.S. News
& World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Respondent’s
failure to associate content with its disputed domain name evinces a lack of
rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”)
Furthermore, Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information
as “Travis Martin c/o Dynadot Privacy,”
which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <victoriassecrret.com> domain name.
Respondent has not offered any evidence to indicate otherwise. The Panel finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent
Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing
in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known
by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) does not apply); 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.”).
Finally,
Respondent’s disputed domain name takes advantage of a common misspelling of
Complainant’s
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel
emphasizes that a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) is not limited to situations enumerated in Policy ¶ 4(b). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph
4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also CBS Broad., Inc. v.
LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly
recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was
registered and is being used in bad faith”).
The Panel finds
that Respondent’s failure to make active use of its confusingly similar <victoriassecrret.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v.
Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active
use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated
that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see
also DCI S.A. v. Link
Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the
respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the
requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
Moreover,
Respondent is engaging in typosquatting by taking advantage of a common
misspelling of Complainant’s
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 <victoriassecrret.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum