Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. Elis Kias / AIMEI International Trade Co., Ltd
Claim Number: FA1706001735426
Complainant is Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, United States. Respondent is Elis Kias / AIMEI International Trade Co., Ltd ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lilashaustralia.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 12, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 15, 2017.
On June 12, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <lilashaustralia.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 June 15, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 5, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lilashaustralia.com. Also on June 15, 2017, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 10, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant and its predecessor in interest have used the LILASH trademark since at least as early as 2007 in connection with the development, manufacture, and sale of eyelash serum and related products. Complainant claims both common law and registered trademark rights in the LILASH mark, and asserts that the mark has become famous worldwide as a result of Complainant's use and promotion of the mark and media coverage thereof. Complainant owns registrations for the mark in the United States and the European Union.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lilashaustralia.com> in May 2017, in the name of a privacy registration service. Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant to use the LILASH mark. The disputed domain name is being used for a website that imitates Complainant's own website and offers for sale products that appear to be counterfeit versions of Complainant's products.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LILASH mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 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 (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 disputed domain name <lilashaustralia.com> is identical to Complainant's registered LILASH trademark, but for the addition of the geographic term "Australia" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. Sunny Lee / Gino Yu, FA 1684505 (Forum Aug. 25, 2016) (finding <lilashcanada.com> confusingly similar to LILASH). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark, and it is being used to impersonate Complainant and sell what presumably are counterfeit goods. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co., KG & HUGO BOSS AG v. Luigii Cardinaee, FA 1733894 (Forum June 28, 2017); Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. Sunny Lee / Gino Yu, supra.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] 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 Complainant's 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."
Respondent's registration of a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of that domain name in an attempt to impersonate Complainant and sell what likely are counterfeit goods, is indicative of bad faith under these provisions of the Policy. See, e.g., HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co., KG & HUGO BOSS AG v. Luigii Cardinaee, supra; Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. Sunny Lee / Gino Yu, supra. The attempt to shield Respondent's identity using a privacy registration service lends further support to the inference of bad faith. See, e.g., YETI Coolers, LLC v. John C Cooper III, FA 1677553 (Forum July 5, 2016). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lilashaustralia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 10, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page