national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. dovbart c/o shay shevach

Claim Number: FA1006001331391

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee, of Sequel Technology & IP Law, LLP, Washington, D.C., USA.  Respondent is dovbart c/o shay shevach (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <offercodevictoriasecret.com>, registered with FASTDOMAIN, INC.

 

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.

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 22, 2010.

 

On June 24, 2010, FASTDOMAIN, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <offercodevictoriasecret.com> domain name is registered with FASTDOMAIN, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  FASTDOMAIN, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FASTDOMAIN, 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 June 28, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 19, 2010 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@offercodevictoriasecret.com.  Also on June 28, 2010, 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.

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 22, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1.  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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.                  This Complaint is based upon the famous trademark and service mark VICTORIA’S SECRET and variations thereof (collectively, the “VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks”), which have been adopted and continually used in commerce by the Complainant, its licensees and predecessors since at least as early as June 12, 1977 in connection with the sale of, inter alia, women’s lingerie and other apparel, personal care and beauty products, swimwear, outerwear, and gift cards.

 

2.                  Complainant uses the famous mark VICTORIA’S SECRET as the name of more than 1,000 Victoria’s Secret retail stores located throughout the United States, which advertise, offer for sale and sell a wide range of items bearing the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks. 

 

3.                  Complainant also uses the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks in its worldwide advertising and sales of a wide range of items bearing the mark in connection with Complainant’s print mail order catalogue and its e-commerce web site located at victoriassecret.com.

 

4.                  In 2009, nearly $5 billion of merchandise was sold in connection with or bearing the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks.  In addition, Complainant’s prominent advertising campaign featuring its famous models has succeeded in catapulting the VICTORIA’S SECRET brand into the realm of one of the world’s most recognized marks.

 

5.                  The mark VICTORIA’S SECRET has been prominently used on the Internet since at least 1998, in connection with Complainant’s goods at Complainant’s web site victoriassecret.com.  The Complainant first registered this domain name on January 23, 1995.  Additionally, the mark VICTORIA’S SECRET has been prominently used on the Internet in connection with the world-famous Victoria’s Secret online fashion shows.  In February 1999, Complainant launched the first live Internet fashion show, attracting a then-record 1.5 million reported web site visitors to a single live broadcast.  This record was shattered on May 18, 2000, when more than 2 million people from over 140 countries viewed the second annual broadcast of the Victoria’s Secret Internet fashion show, which prominently featured the mark VICTORIA’S SECRET.  The brand has also been promoted since 2001 through the annual network television broadcast of the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.

 

6.                  The mark VICTORIA’S SECRET and variations thereof are duly registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office under 22 valid, subsisting and uncancelled registrations, and Complainant is the owner thereof by registration and/or assignment.  Many of those registrations are incontestable.  In addition, Complainant has approximately 27 applications pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office that contain the mark VICTORIA’S SECRET and variations thereof.

 

7.                  As a result of this widespread, long-time, continuous, and prominent use of the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks, the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks have acquired significant goodwill, wide public recognition, and fame as a means by which Complainant and its merchandise are known to the public and its source and origin are identified.  See V Secret Catalogue et al.  v. Artco Inc., No.  94342 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 9, 2000) (recognizing VICTORIA’S SECRET as a famous mark).

 

II.                Grounds On Which The Complaint is Made

 

A.                 The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark

 

8.                  Respondent’s registered Domain Name, offercodevictoriasecret.com, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark VICTORIA’S SECRET and the domain name used by Complainant in connection with the legitimate sale of products bearing the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks, namely victoriassecret.com.

 

9.                  The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in its entirety (absent the apostrophe and space, which cannot be included in a domain name, and the “s” in “Victoria’s”) and merely prefaces the mark with the term “offer code.”  By registering a domain name that merely adds a generic term to the famous mark VICTORIA’S SECRET, Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name and the web site to which it resolves.  See V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Admin c/o LaPorte Holdings, FA 467778 (Nat. Arb. Forum, June 13, 2005) (finding surfvictoriassecret.com and victoriassecretfashion.com confusingly similar to the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark); V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Wig Distributions, FA 301727 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Sept. 7, 2004) (finding victoriassecrethair.com confusingly similar to the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark).  

 

10.              The likelihood of confusion is heightened by the choice of term added to Complainant’s mark, namely “offer code.”  An “offer code” is an alphanumeric string issued by a retailer as part of a promotion that, when entered into an order form by consumers, provides them with a discount or other benefit.  Consumers might believe that the Domain Name, offercodevictoriasecret.com, leads to an official VICTORIA’S SECRET site containing offer codes for VICTORIA’S SECRET promotions.  See, e.g., Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, No.  AF-0298 (eResolution, Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where respondent’s domain name combined complainant’s mark with a generic term that had an obvious relationship to complainant’s business); Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (same).  As a result, Respondent’s Domain Name is likely to cause mistake and misleadingly divert Internet users trying to locate an official VICTORIA’S SECRET web site.

 

B.                 Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name

 

11.              The Domain Name resolves to a web site that displays the title “Enter Your Email and Recieve [sic] Free $1,000 Victoria’s Secret Gift Card” and frames a web site for a program called SurfBounty, “The Highest Paying Reward Site.”  The framed SurfBounty site asks visitors to sign up by submitting personal information.  The SurfBounty site says that once visitors sign up, they will be paid for visiting specific web sites, filling out surveys, completing offers, reading emails from SurfBounty, and shopping online.  The SurfBounty site provides links to “Member Offers,” none of which are related to Complainant.  In fact, other than the deceptive page title, there is no mention of the VICTORIA’S SECRET brand on Respondent’s site or the framed SurfBounty site.

 

12.              SurfBounty offers an affiliate program, under which web site owners are paid for advertising SurfBounty on their web sites.  On information and belief, Respondent receives revenue through SurfBounty’s affiliate program for using the Domain Name to divert traffic to the SurfBounty site, or otherwise financially benefits from the its use of the Domain Name.

 

13.              Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant; nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks in domain names, on any web site, or in any other manner.  Neither the site to which the Domain Name resolves nor the SurfBounty site is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. 

 

14.              Clearly Respondent is using the Domain Name to confuse consumers and divert them from the legitimate VICTORIA’S SECRET web site to the SurfBounty site, which collects personal information from visitors and promotes businesses that are unrelated to Complainant.  On information and belief, Respondent receives commercial gain from this diversion.  Such use of Complainant’s mark to divert Internet traffic to a web site that is unrelated to Complainant and derive revenue therefrom does not constitute use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.  See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO, Dec. 8, 2000) (finding that use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s web site offering goods with no connection to Complainant is not a bona fide commercial offering of goods or services).  Thus, Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.  See Policy, ¶4(c)(i).

 

15.              Further, on information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, either as a business, individual, or other organization.  See Policy, ¶4(c)(ii).  Respondent’s name is dovbart c/o shay shevach.  Additionally, Respondent registered the Domain Name approximately thirty years after Complainant began using its VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks; more than ten years after Complainant registered the domain name victoriassecret.com for its e-commerce web site; and long after the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks became famous.  See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

16.              Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.  On information and belief, the sole reason Respondent has chosen the offercodevictoriasecret.com Domain Name is to misleadingly trade off the fame of the VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks in order to divert Internet traffic from Complainant’s web site to Respondent’s for commercial gain.  See Policy, ¶4(c)(iii).

 

C.                 The Domain Name Was Registered And Is Being Used In Bad Faith

 

17.              Respondent is using Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks in the Domain Name to drive traffic to a web site framing the SurfBounty site, which promotes businesses with no connection to Complainant.  On information and belief, Respondent benefits financially from referring traffic to the SurfBounty site.  Thus, upon information and belief, Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users to Respondent’s web site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s Domain Name and web site, thereby misleadingly diverting Internet traffic from Complainant’s web site to Respondent’s for commercial gain.  This use of the Domain Name indicates that Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.” See Policy, ¶4(b)(iv).

 

18.              It is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s famous trademark VICTORIA’S SECRET when Respondent registered the Domain Name.  See V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. PM Websites, No.  94652 (Nat. Arb. Forum, June 8, 2000) (VICTORIA’S SECRET mark has acquired significant goodwill, wide public recognition and fame).  Given the fame of the VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark, there is no reason for Respondent to have registered the Domain Name other than to trade off of the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s famous VICTORIA’S SECRET mark.  See Charles Jorden Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO, June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name in question is “so obviously connected with the Complainant and its products that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith.”).  In addition, the title of the site, “Enter Your Email and Recieve [sic] Free $1,000 Victoria’s Secret Gift Card,” indicates that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET Marks when it registered the Domain Name.

 

19.              At a minimum, the existence of Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations charged Respondent with constructive knowledge of those registered marks.  See 15 U.S.C.  § 1072; Policy, ¶4(b)(iv); see also Mastercard Int’l.  Inc. v. Total Card Inc., Case No.  D2007-1411 (WIPO, Nov. 28, 2007) (registration of domain name containing registered and/or famous trademark is evidence of bad faith); National Rifle Association of America v. Future Media Architects, Inc., FA781430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 13, 2006) (same). 

 

20.              In addition, Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name violates the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.  § 43(d), et seq.

 

 

B.                 Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  However, Respondent submitted the following email to the case administrator:

 

Hi Michel,

 

I really don't understand this procedure.

 

If you are the one that decides, just give them the domain and let's finish with this.

 

Please let me know if this dispute might have a fee incurred? other measures will have to be taken

 

Thanks,

 

Shay

 

FINDINGS

Complainant Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. owns multiple trademarks for its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,146,199 issued January 20, 1981).  Complainant uses the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark as the name of more than 1,000 retail stores which advertise and offer for sale a wide range of items bearing Complainant’s mark including lingerie, clothing, and personal care products.  Complainant also uses its mark in connection with both print mail order catalogues as well as online retail services offered at the website resolving from Complainant’s <victoriassecret.com> domain name. 

 

Respondent dovbart c/o shay shevach registered the disputed domain name on October 16, 2009.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays the title “Enter Your Email and Receive [sic] Free $1,000 Victoria’s Secret Gift Card” and frames a website for SurfBounty, “The Highest Paying Reward Site.”  The SurfBounty site asks visitors to sign up by submitting personal information and indicates that once visitors have signed up they will be paid for visiting specific websites, filling out surveys, completing offers, reading emails from SurfBounty, and shopping online.  The SurfBounty site provides links to “Member Offers,” none of which are related to Complainant.

 

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."

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a formal 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.”).  The Panel will bear the Respondent’s email in mind, which the Panel views as tantamount to a consent to the domain being transferred.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant asserts rights in its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark based on its registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,146,199 issued January 20, 1981).  The Panel finds registrations of Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).  See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO). 

 

Complainant claims Respondent’s <offercodevictoriasecret.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark.  Respondent’s disputed domain name eliminates the apostrophe, space between the words in Complainant’s mark, and the letter “s,” while adding the generic terms “offer code” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds none of these alterations, alone or together, is sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.  See LOreal USA Creative Inc v. Syncopate.com – Smart Names for Startups, FA 203944 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the omission of an apostrophe did not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s <hacrs.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HACRES mark because it omitted the letter “e” from the mark and added the generic top-level domain “.com”); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. McSherry, FA 154589 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding the <disneyvacationvillas.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because it incorporated Complainant’s entire famous mark and merely added two terms to it); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis).  Therefore, this Panel finds Respondent’s <offercodevictoriasecret.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). 

 

Respondent’s informal response does not contradict any of these findings.

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Policy ¶4(a)(i) requires that Complainant make a prima facie case in support of its assertions before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds Complainant has established a sufficient prima facie case based on the arguments contained in the Complaint.  Respondent has failed to submit a formal Response to these proceedings, allowing the Panel to infer Respondent does in fact lack rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); 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.”).  Nevertheless, in order to make a full and complete determination of Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests, the Panel will examine the record in light of the factors outlined in Policy ¶4(c). 

 

Complainant indicates Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor has Respondent been licensed to use the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in a domain name, on any website, or in any other manner.  The WHOIS information for the <offercodevictoriasecret.com> domain name lists the registrant as “dovbart c/o shay shevach.”  The Panel finds that without any evidence to the contrary in the record, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant argues Respondent is using the disputed domain name to obtain personal information from potential customers of Complainant.  Complainant further argues Respondent’s website ultimately resolves to third-party websites unrelated to Complainant from which Respondent likely profits through the receipt of click-through fees.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to obtain personal information from Internet users and profit through the display of third-party click-through links is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).  See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).

 

Respondent’s informal response does not contradict any of these findings.

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant contends Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain.  Complainant further contends Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name which contains an explicit reference to Complainant on its resolving website is an attempt by Respondent to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds Respondent’s reliance on Internet users’ confusion in an attempt to profit from third-party links unrelated to Complainant is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).  See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).

 

Respondent’s informal response does not contradict any of these findings.

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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 <offercodevictoriasecret.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated: July 27, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum