Claim Number: FA1006001332753
Complainant is Victoria’s
Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee, of Sequel Technology & IP Law PLLC,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <victoriassecretcareers.com>, registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 29, 2010.
On July 1, 2010, DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name is registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM 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 July 8, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@victoriassecretcareers.com by e-mail. Also on July 8, 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 August 6, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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
<victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, owns
the
Reg. No. 1,146,199 issued January 20, 1981
Reg. No. 1,908,042 issued August 1, 1995
Reg. No. 3,480,533 issued August 5, 2008
LOVE PINK
Reg. No. 3,805,362 issued June 22, 2010
Reg. No. 3,693,125 issued October 6, 2009
Reg. No. 3,226,760 issued April 10, 2007
Reg. No. 3,502,263 issued September 16, 2008
Reg. No. 3,520,974 issued October 21, 2008
Reg. No. 2,820,380 issued March 2, 2004
Reg. No. 2,992,758 issued September 6, 2005
GLAMOUR BY
Reg. No. 2,890,467 issued September 28, 2004
MOOD BY
Reg. No. 3,126,002 issued August 8, 2006
Reg. No. 3,013,385 issued November 8, 2005
Reg. No. 2,994,208 issued September 13, 2005
Reg. No. 2,861,386 issued July 6, 2004
Reg. No. 3,670,768 issued August 18, 2009
NO ONE FITS WOMEN LIKE
Reg. No. 3,623,754 issued May 19, 2009
Reg. No. 3,467,728 issued July 15, 2008
Reg. No. 3,426,643 issued May 13, 2008
Respondent, Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd., registered the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name on December 12, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains a list of hyperlinks, the majority of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the women’s lingerie and other apparel, personal care and beauty products, swimwear, and outerwear business.
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’s holds multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO:
Reg. No. 1,146,199 issued January 20, 1981
Reg. No. 1,908,042 issued August 1, 1995
Reg. No. 3,480,533 issued August 5, 2008
LOVE PINK
Reg. No. 3,805,362 issued June 22, 2010
Reg. No. 3,693,125 issued October 6, 2009
Reg. No. 3,226,760 issued April 10, 2007
Reg. No. 3,502,263 issued September 16, 2008
Reg. No. 3,520,974 issued October 21, 2008
Reg. No. 2,820,380 issued March 2, 2004
Reg. No. 2,992,758 issued September 6, 2005
GLAMOUR BY
Reg. No. 2,890,467 issued September 28, 2004
MOOD BY
Reg. No. 3,126,002 issued August 8, 2006
Reg. No. 3,013,385 issued November 8, 2005
Reg. No. 2,994,208 issued September 13, 2005
Reg. No. 2,861,386 issued July 6, 2004
Reg. No. 3,670,768 issued August 18, 2009
NO ONE FITS WOMEN LIKE
Reg. No. 3,623,754 issued May 19, 2009
Reg. No. 3,467,728 issued July 15, 2008
Reg. No. 3,426,643 issued May 13, 2008
The Panel finds Complainant has established rights in its
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <victoriassecretcareers.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Respondent has failed to present any evidence, and the Panel
fails to find any evidence in the record, that would support a finding that
Respondent is commonly known by the <victoriassecretcareers.com>
domain name. To the contrary,
Complainant argues that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any
way and that Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use
Complainant’s
Respondent’s <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name resolves to a website that contains a list of third-party hyperlinks, the majority of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the women’s lingerie and other apparel, personal care and beauty products, swimwear, and outerwear business. Respondent likely receives click-through fees from the aforementioned hyperlinks. The Panel determines that Respondent’s use of the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent uses the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name to resolve to a website that features a third-party hyperlink directory. The majority of the featured hyperlinks resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the women’s lingerie and other apparel, personal care and beauty products, swimwear, and outerwear business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature hyperlinks of Complainant’s competitors disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers away from Complainant and to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel further finds that Respondent’s use of the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
Respondent receives a click-through fee each time an Internet user clicks on one of the aforementioned hyperlinks featured on the website resolving from the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name. Respondent is attempting to profit from Internet users that access the website with the mistaken belief that the disputed domain name and resolving website are affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent’s attempt to profit from Internet users’ confusion constitutes bad faith registration and use of the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <victoriassecretcareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: August 10, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum