The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. and NM
Nevada Trust v. Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy
Claim
Number: FA0410000338381
Complainant is The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. and NM Nevada Trust (collectively,
“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP, 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 6000,
Newport Beach, CA 92660. Respondent is Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy (“Respondent”), FD.
Rooseveltweg #518, Curacao, AN.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <marcusneiman.com>, registered with Nameking.com,
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on October 1, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 1, 2004.
On
October 1, 2004, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <marcusneiman.com> is registered with Nameking.com,
Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameking.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameking.com, 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
October 5, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
October 25, 2004 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@marcusneiman.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
November 3, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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."
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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <marcusneiman.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <marcusneiman.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <marcusneiman.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
In 1907, The
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. established a retail chain that has since become an
internationally recognized innovator in fashion and merchandise. Complainant has used the NEIMAN MARCUS mark
in connection with its apparel-related goods and services since 1939.
Complainant, NM
Nevada Trust, owns several United States trademark registrations for the NEIMAN
MARCUS marks (e.g. Reg. No. 601,375, issued April 6, 1954), which it licenses
to The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (collectively, hereinafter
“Complainant”). Complainant has been
the exclusive user of the NEIMAN MARCUS mark in the United States since as early
as 1907, and has been using the mark continuously in commerce for the past 97
years.
Respondent
registered the <marcusneiman.com> domain name on August 22, 2004
and is using it to display banner ads and pop-up ads and links to redirect
Internet users to various other webpages offering the same apparel-related
products and services as Complainant.
Respondent has a
long history of registering domain names incorporating marks of various third
parties. See Avery Dennison v. Horoshiy, Inc. FA 289048 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 2, 2004).
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.
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 has
established that it has rights in the NEIMAN MARCUS mark through registration
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
through continued use of its mark in commerce for the last 97 years. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA
117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered
marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired
secondary meaning.”); see also Janus
Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding
that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption).
Respondent’s <marcusneiman.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark because
the domain name includes Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the exception
that the words in the domain name are transposed. The Panel finds that, similar to the transposition of letters in
a domain name, the transposition of words in a mark is insufficient to
differentiate the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding
<googel.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and
noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark
capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a
very probable typographical error”); see
also Pier 1 Imps., Inc. v. Success Work, D2001-0419 (WIPO May 16, 2001) (finding that the domain name
<peir1.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's PIER 1 mark).
The Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
alleges Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <marcusneiman.com>
domain name containing Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts
to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D.
Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on
Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that, once Complainant asserts that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain,
the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates
its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name).
Additionally,
where Complainant makes the prima facie showing
and Respondent does not respond, the Panel may accept all reasonable
allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v.
Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (stating that “[i]n the absence
of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the
Complaint”); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v.
webnet-marketing, inc.,
FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to
respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of
Complainant to be deemed true).
Respondent is
using the <marcusneiman.com> domain name to misdirect Internet
users to a commercial website displaying banner advertisements and links to
websites that offer apparel-related goods similar to those offered by
Complainant. Respondent’s use of a
domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark to redirect
internet users interested in Complainant’s products to commercial websites
offering goods and services similar to those offered by Complainant is not a
use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA
154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of
infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website
that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name); see
also FAO Schwarz v. Zuccarini, FA 95828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names
<faoscwartz.com>, <foaschwartz.com>, <faoshwartz.com>, and
<faoswartz.com> where Respondent was using these domain names to link to
an advertising website); see also Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan,
FA 154119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have
rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark
and redirected Internet users to website that pays domain name registrants for
referring those users to its search engine and pop-up advertisements).
Respondent is
not known individually, as a business, or in any other manner by the <marcusneiman.com>
domain name. Complainant has not
licensed Respondent to use the NEIMAN MARCUS mark, nor does Respondent have any
legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle it lawfully to use
Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark. Thus,
Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied
for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of
Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede
Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain
name in question).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
registered and used the <marcusneiman.com> domain name in bad
faith and for commercial gain. Respondent
registered the domain name with the intention of attracting Internet users who
mistakenly identify the <marcusneiman.com> domain name with
Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the display of banner
advertisements, pop-up ads and commercial links on Respondent’s webpage. Respondent derives economic gain from
redirecting Internet users and receiving compensation from the advertisements
located on the webpage in addition to click through fees from the pop-up ads and
third-party links. Respondent’s conduct
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding
Respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to Complainant’s
<deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from
Complainant through its affiliate program); see
also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used
the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent
was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its
commercial website); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its
diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to
commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Additionally,
Respondent has been involved in at least one previous domain name dispute under
the Policy where bad faith was found based on similar facts. The Panel finds that the prior
administrative proceeding and Respondent’s current use of the disputed domain
name evidences a pattern of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(ii). See Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Spanno Indus., FA 95283 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent has registered numerous domain names
containing sexual references and domain names which are confusingly similar to
third party trademarks; which points to a pattern of conduct on the part of
Respondent, revealing that Respondent is registering domain names in order to
prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain
names); see also Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune
Int’l Dev. Ent, D2000-0412 (WIPO
July 2, 2000) (finding a pattern of conduct where Respondent registered
numerous domain names with the number 2000, including <bmw2000.com>,
<mercedesbenz2000.com>, <saab2000.net>, etc.).
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 <marcusneiman.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: November 17, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page