Chan Luu Inc. v. D. Stuber Charles / A. Miller James / S. Johnson John / J. Key Gordon / M. Hamm Emil / J. White Walter / L. Nace Jesus / V. Murch James / T. Gross Alan / M. Barrett Todd / J. Allison Richard / E. Duckett Roy / R. Lopez David / C. Lewis Charles / J. Lathan Dylan / J. Welch Michael / E. Findley Danny / A. Chandler Jose / E. Dobos Timothy / M. Souza Leo / C. Germany Justin / J. Bucher Robert / B. Brown Jeff / B. Best Daniel / M. Shore Patrick / L. Galindo Zachary / W. Petrie David / P. Livingstone Ray / J. Jackson Josef / B. Palumbo Matthew / C. Davison Rolando / S. Larson George / M. Boyce Anthony / V. Lopez Chris / A. Rodiguez Van / S. Malcom Kenneth / M. Zimmerman Nathan / C. Gervais Gary / M. Espinosa Isiah / D. Brooks Michael
Claim Number: FA1210001465466
Complainant is Chan Luu Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is D. Stuber Charles / A. Miller James / S. Johnson John / J. Key Gordon / M. Hamm Emil / J. White Walter / L. Nace Jesus / V. Murch James / T. Gross Alan / M. Barrett Todd / J. Allison Richard / E. Duckett Roy / R. Lopez David / C. Lewis Charles / J. Lathan Dylan / J. Welch Michael / E. Findley Danny / A. Chandler Jose / E. Dobos Timothy / M. Souza Leo / C. Germany Justin / J. Bucher Robert / B. Brown Jeff / B. Best Daniel / M. Shore Patrick / L. Galindo Zachary / W. Petrie David / P. Livingstone Ray / (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <chan-luu-japan.com>, <chan-luubrand.com>, <chan-luucojp.com>, <chan-luufashion.com>, <chan-luugood.com>, <chan-luumall.com>, <chan-luuoutlet.com>, <chan-luupop.com>, <chan-luurakuten.com>, <chan-luusale.com>, <chan-luusales.com>, <chan-luushop.com>, <chan-luustyle.com>, <chan-luuwrapjp.com>, <chanluu-jewelry.com>, <chanluu-online.com>, <chanluu-style.com>, <chanluubangles.com>, <chanluubraceletjp.com>, <chanluubrand.com>, <chanluuchain.com>, <chanluuchiffon.com>, <chanluuclassicjp.com>, <chanluuclassicjps.com>, <chanluucojp.com>, <chanluucuffs.com>, <chanluuearrings.com>, <chanluugifts.com>, <chanluugood.com>, <chanluujapanpop.com>, <chanluujp2012.com>, <chanluumall.com>, <chanluumallcojp.com>, <chanluusaleshop.com>, <chanluuskulls.com>, <chanluustylestore.com>, <chanluuswarovski.com>, <chanluuwrapjp.com>, <chanluuwrappop.com>, and <shopchanluu2012.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 2, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 3, 2012.
On October 5, 2012; Oct 12, 2012, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chan-luu-japan.com>, <chan-luubrand.com>, <chan-luucojp.com>, <chan-luufashion.com>, <chan-luugood.com>, <chan-luumall.com>, <chan-luuoutlet.com>, <chan-luupop.com>, <chan-luurakuten.com>, <chan-luusale.com>, <chan-luusales.com>, <chan-luushop.com>, <chan-luustyle.com>, <chan-luuwrapjp.com>, <chanluu-jewelry.com>, <chanluu-online.com>, <chanluu-style.com>, <chanluubangles.com>, <chanluubraceletjp.com>, <chanluubrand.com>, <chanluuchain.com>, <chanluuchiffon.com>, <chanluuclassicjp.com>, <chanluuclassicjps.com>, <chanluucojp.com>, <chanluucuffs.com>, <chanluuearrings.com>, <chanluugifts.com>, <chanluugood.com>, <chanluujapanpop.com>, <chanluujp2012.com>, <chanluumall.com>, <chanluumallcojp.com>, <chanluusaleshop.com>, <chanluuskulls.com>, <chanluustylestore.com>, <chanluuswarovski.com>, <chanluuwrapjp.com>, <chanluuwrappop.com>, and <shopchanluu2012.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc 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 October 16, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 5, 2012 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@chan-luu-japan.com, postmaster@chan-luubrand.com, postmaster@chan-luucojp.com, postmaster@chan-luufashion.com, postmaster@chan-luugood.com, postmaster@chan-luumall.com, postmaster@chan-luuoutlet.com, postmaster@chan-luupop.com, postmaster@chan-luurakuten.com, postmaster@chan-luusale.com, postmaster@chan-luusales.com, postmaster@chan-luushop.com, postmaster@chan-luustyle.com, postmaster@chan-luuwrapjp.com, postmaster@chanluu-jewelry.com, postmaster@chanluu-online.com, postmaster@chanluu-style.com, postmaster@chanluubangles.com, postmaster@chanluubraceletjp.com, postmaster@chanluubrand.com, postmaster@chanluuchain.com, postmaster@chanluuchiffon.com, postmaster@chanluuclassicjp.com, postmaster@chanluuclassicjps.com, postmaster@chanluucojp.com, postmaster@chanluucuffs.com, postmaster@chanluuearrings.com, postmaster@chanluugifts.com, postmaster@chanluugood.com, postmaster@chanluujapanpop.com, postmaster@chanluujp2012.com, postmaster@chanluumall.com, postmaster@chanluumallcojp.com, postmaster@chanluusaleshop.com, postmaster@chanluuskulls.com, postmaster@chanluustylestore.com, postmaster@chanluuswarovski.com, postmaster@chanluuwrapjp.com, postmaster@chanluuwrappop.com, and postmaster@shopchanluu2012.com. Also on October 16, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 November 16, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <chan-luu-japan.com>, <chan-luubrand.com>, <chan-luucojp.com>, <chan-luufashion.com>, <chan-luugood.com>, <chan-luumall.com>, <chan-luuoutlet.com>, <chan-luupop.com>, <chan-luurakuten.com>, <chan-luusale.com>, <chan-luusales.com>, <chan-luushop.com>, <chan-luustyle.com>, <chan-luuwrapjp.com>, <chanluu-jewelry.com>, <chanluu-online.com>, <chanluu-style.com>, <chanluubangles.com>, <chanluubraceletjp.com>, <chanluubrand.com>, <chanluuchain.com>, <chanluuchiffon.com>, <chanluuclassicjp.com>, <chanluuclassicjps.com>, <chanluucojp.com>, <chanluucuffs.com>, <chanluuearrings.com>, <chanluugifts.com>, <chanluugood.com>, <chanluujapanpop.com>, <chanluujp2012.com>, <chanluumall.com>, <chanluumallcojp.com>, <chanluusaleshop.com>, <chanluuskulls.com>, <chanluustylestore.com>, <chanluuswarovski.com>, <chanluuwrapjp.com>, <chanluuwrappop.com>, and <shopchanluu2012.com> domain names (the “disputed domain names”) are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHAN LUU mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a timely Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registrations for the CHAN LUU mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,869,029 registered August 3, 2004), used in connection with jewelry and accessories.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on September 3, 2012, and uses them to resolve to websites selling counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
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(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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities that control the disputed domain names are effectively the same person and/or entity, operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that, though the WHOIS record for each of the disputed domain names lists a unique name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, these are all aliases for one Respondent. Complainant provides the Panel with evidence that the registrar for each of the disputed domain names, Godaddy.Com, Llc., confirmed that all 40 of the domain names are held in the same two user accounts at <GoDaddy.com>. Furthermore, Complainant notes that each of the disputed domain names is used to host one of several common-template websites that sell counterfeit CHAN LUU goods. Complainant also provides evidence that each of the disputed domain names’ resolving websites are hosted on webservers with IP addresses from the same delegated IP block assigned to one hosting company, DataShack, LC. According to Complainant, Respondent used the service provided at <fakenamegenerator.com>, which randomly generates information that Respondent used to create the aliases for the disputed domain names’ WHOIS records. Complainant asserts that the e-mail addresses in the disputed domain names’ WHOIS records all end in either “teleworm.us” or “dayrep.com,” used by the <fakenamegenerator.com> to create e-mail addresses. Complainant also states that all three of the domains <fakenamegenerator.com>, <teleworm.us>, and <dayrep.com> are operated by the same entity, Corban Works, LLC. Lastly, Complainant notes that the address in the WHOIS record for each of the disputed domain names lists “New York 10001” as the state and zip code. Therefore, Complainant contends that a single entity controls all of the disputed domain names.
The Panel agrees and finds that Complainant has presented sufficient and uncontroverted evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations demonstrate that it has rights in the CHAN LUU mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations).
Respondent’s disputed domain names each fully incorporate Complainant’s CHAN LUU mark, eliminating the space, and adding one or more of the following: a generic term, a descriptive term, a geographic term, numbers, a hyphen, and the gTLD “.com.” The panel in Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007), held that the deletion of spaces and the addition of a gTLD are changes required of all domain names and thus are irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. In Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003), the panel held that the addition of a hyphen is likewise not a change that differentiates a disputed domain name from a mark within it. The panel in Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004), found that the addition of generic or descriptive terms fails to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark within it. Similarly, in Ticketmaster Corp. v. Kumar, FA 744436 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006), the panel held that the addition of geographic terms does not distinguish a domain name from the mark within it. Lastly, the Panel notes that previous panels have found that the addition of numbers to a mark in a domain name does not create a distinction between the mark and the domain name. See Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune Int’l Dev. Ent. Co., D2000-0412 (WIPO July 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name <hitachi2000.net> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). The Panel finds accordingly that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHAN LUU mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that it has not authorized Respondent to use the CHAN LUU mark. According to Complainant, none of the aliases in the disputed domain names’ WHOIS records is remotely similar to the CHAN LUU mark. The Panel agrees, noting that the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names list “A. Robinson Jewel / Alton B. Bates Alton B. Bates / Stanley M. Moree Stanley M. Moree / Teodoro N. Mills Teodoro N. Mills / Louis P. Kron Louis P. Kron / Frank G. Derrick Frank G. Derrick / J. Brown Gregorio / L. Beard John / George C. Yowell George C. Yowell / G. Zawacki Michael / Robert L. Quillen Robert L. Quillen / N. Roland Tim / B. Oxendine Mark / Kelly L. Ross Kelly L. Ross / J. Huff Kyle / Adam T. McCormack Adam T. McCormack / Danny M. Cannady Danny M. Cannady” as the domain name registrants. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names is further evidenced by Respondent’s use of the domain names to resolve to websites where Respondent sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods. Panels have previously held that the sale of counterfeit goods is not a protected use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See Max Mara Fashion Grp. S.r.l. v. Lee, FA 1391129 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2011) (“Respondent’s sale of counterfeit versions of Complainant’s merchandise via the disputed domain name is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is intentionally misdirecting Internet users searching for Complainant’s website to Respondent’s websites, which prominently display Complainant’s CHAN LUU mark, and offer counterfeit goods in direct competition to Complainant’s goods. The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain names intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CHAN LUU mark, bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See C. & J. Clark Int’l Ltd. v. Shanhua, FA 1388854 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2011) (finding the respondent to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith by selling counterfeit products and capitalizing on the likelihood that Internet users may find a respondent’s website whilst searching for the complainant’s website, become confused as to the affiliation with or sponsorship of the disputed domain name to the complainant, and purchase goods through the disputed domain name rather than through the complainant).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHAN LUU mark, as evidenced by Respondent’s use of official photos of Complainant’s and the CHAN LUU mark on the disputed domain names’ resolving websites. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights, agrees and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chan-luu-japan.com>, <chan-luubrand.com>, <chan-luucojp.com>, <chan-luufashion.com>, <chan-luugood.com>, <chan-luumall.com>, <chan-luuoutlet.com>, <chan-luupop.com>, <chan-luurakuten.com>, <chan-luusale.com>, <chan-luusales.com>, <chan-luushop.com>, <chan-luustyle.com>, <chan-luuwrapjp.com>, <chanluu-jewelry.com>, <chanluu-online.com>, <chanluu-style.com>, <chanluubangles.com>, <chanluubraceletjp.com>, <chanluubrand.com>, <chanluuchain.com>, <chanluuchiffon.com>, <chanluuclassicjp.com>, <chanluuclassicjps.com>, <chanluucojp.com>, <chanluucuffs.com>, <chanluuearrings.com>, <chanluugifts.com>, <chanluugood.com>, <chanluujapanpop.com>, <chanluujp2012.com>, <chanluumall.com>, <chanluumallcojp.com>, <chanluusaleshop.com>, <chanluuskulls.com>, <chanluustylestore.com>, <chanluuswarovski.com>, <chanluuwrapjp.com>, <chanluuwrappop.com>, and <shopchanluu2012.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 26, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page