Annco, Inc. v. N/A / Saurabh
Claim Number: FA1606001682100
Complainant: Annco, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: N/A of Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Mr. Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 30, 2016
Commencement: July 5, 2016
Default Date: July 20, 2016
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1.] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the US trademark registration no. 3,852,268 ANN TAYLOR LOFT, which was registered on September 28, 2010 for various goods and services in classes 25 and 35, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the ANN TAYLOR LOFT Mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the ANN TAYLOR LOFT Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that it has never granted any license or other permission to the Respondent to use ANN TAYLOR LOFT either as a trademark or as part of a domain name, that the Respondent is not named or commonly known as “Ann Taylor Loft,” and that it is not making a bona fide use of the domain name, as the domain is being used to sell a variety of goods, not just ANN TAYLOR LOFT merchandise.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website offering various goods from different manufacturers.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the Complainant’s ANN TAYLOR LOFT Mark is well established and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites, which is evidence of bad faith registration.
The Examiner is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the ANN TAYLOR LOFT Mark, as such mark is highly distinctive and as the Respondent is offering the Complainant’s products at the website available at the disputed domain name. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the ANN TAYLOR LOFT Mark into the disputed domain name, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for commercial gain as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<anntaylorloft.top>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: July 25, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page