DECISION

 

Kendra Scott and Kendra Scott, LLC v. white jams / Romail Tariq / JAMS WHITE / Dexter Reading / xiang dao xin xi ji shu you xiang gong si / Smachetti Paul / fang bin feng / cyl / ah bay

Claim Number: FA1806001792824

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kendra Scott and Kendra Scott, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David E. Armendariz of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA.  Respondent is white jams / Romail Tariq / JAMS WHITE / Dexter Reading / xiang dao xin xi ji shu you xiang gong si / Smachetti Paul / fang bin feng / cyl / ah bay (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are: <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <uskendras.com>, <kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, and <kendrascottcoupon.com> domain names, registered with NameSilo, LLC; <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <kendscottshop.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, and <vipkendrascott.com> domain names registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC; <kendrascottonline.com> domain name is registered with Gandi SAS; and <kendrascottjewelry.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 20, 2018; the Forum received payment on June 20, 2018.

 

On June 22, 2018;  NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <uskendras.com>, <kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com, kendrascottbeauty.com, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. On June 22, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum the <kendrascottjewelry.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. On June 25, 2018, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum the <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <kendscottshop.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, and <vipkendrascott.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Respondent is the current registrant of the name. On June 27, 2018, Gandi SAS confirmed by e-mail to the Forum the <kendrascottonline.com> domain name is registered with Gandi SAS and Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NameSilo, LLC, GoDaddy.com, LLC, Gandi SAS, and NameCheap, Inc. have verified Respondent is bound by the their respective registration agreements 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 July 6, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 26, 2018 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@shopkendrascott.com, postmaster@kendrascottsale.com, postmaster@kscottstops.com, postmaster@kendrscotts.com, postmaster@uskendras.com, postmaster@kendrascottvip.com, postmaster@kendrascottdeal.com, postmaster@kendrascotti.com, postmaster@kendrascot.com, postmaster@vipkendrascott.com, postmaster@kendrascottstores.com, postmaster@kendraiscott.com, postmaster@kendrascottsjewelry.com, postmaster@kendrascottbeauty.com, postmaster@kendrascottwichita.com, postmaster@kendrascotttop.com, postmaster@kendrascottsvip.com, postmaster@kendrascottonline.com, postmaster@kendrascottcoupon.com, and postmaster@kendscottshop.com.  Also on July 6, 2018, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 3, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants

The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e).  UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.”  The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”

 

There are two Complainants in this matter: Kendra Scott and Kendra Scott LLC. Complainants bring this claim jointly because: (1) Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondent and (2) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the joint-complainant to have their claims decided together.  Kendra Scott LLC licenses the trademarks from Kendra Scott.

 

Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other.  For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names.  Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.  But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).

 

The fact Kendra Scott LLC licenses the trademarks from Kendra Scott is sufficient evidence to establish a sufficient nexus between the Complainants.  This Panel will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding.

Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents

Complainant claims the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is 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.”  The websites associated with the disputed domain names are either similar or identical.  All offer discounted counterfeit KENDRA SCOTT jewelry. The disputed domain names were all registered within two (2) weeks of each other, primarily using the same two registrars: NameSilo or GoDaddy.com.

 

The Panel notes the disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:

 

 

All of the disputed domain names use Cloudflare’s services and the same hosting agency, CNNIC-ALIBABA-CN-NET-AP Alibaba (China) Technology Co., Ltd., CN. The text of the Privacy Policy and Delivery Information for several of the websites appear identical.  The Panel concludes there is only one entity behind all of the domain names.  No Respondent has objected to being treated as a single entity.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant [Footnotes Omitted]

Trademark/Service Mark Information:

Complainants

 

Complainant Kendra Scott (“Kendra”) is a prominent and well-known jewelry and accessory designer.  Joint Complainant Kendra Scott, LLC (“KS LLC”) is the exclusive licensee of the trademarks KENDRA SCOTT and KENDRA discussed herein (collectively Kendra and KS LLC are referred to herein as “Complainants” or “KS”).  Accordingly, Complainants bring this Complaint jointly because (i) the Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondent, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the joint-complaint.

 

KS’ jewelry has been featured in leading publications such as Marie Claire, In Style, People, Glamour, among others, and is sold at www.kendrascott.com, as well as in stores throughout the United States. More information about Complainants and KS’ goods and services can be found at www.kendrascott.com. 

 

Complainants’ Marks and Registrations

 

Kendra owns and has used the well-known mark KENDRA SCOTT (the “KENDRA SCOTT Mark”) for over a decade with a highly successful line of jewelry, as well as retail and online retail jewelry store services.  Additionally, Kendra’s rights in the mark KENDRA date back to September 2006, the filing date the U.S. application for the mark KENDRA for jewelry, which registration is now incontestable and valid and subsisting.

 

The marks KENDRA SCOTT and KENDRA are distinctive identifiers associated with the Complainants’ goods and services. The fact that Respondent is using the Disputed Domains to resolve to websites that feature the KENDRA SCOTT Mark along with photographs of Complainants’ products reinforces the fact that the KENDRA SCOTT Mark is uniquely associated with Complainants and Respondent is well aware of Complainants and their products. Further, the photographs used by Respondent at the Disputed Domains have been unlawfully copied from Complainants’ website, and the copyright in those photographs is owned by KS LLC.

 

In addition to its strong common law rights, Complainant Kendra owns numerous trademark registrations for the KENDRA SCOTT Mark around the world, as well as a registration for the mark KENDRA, including, but not limited to the following USPTO registrations:

 

Mark	Registration Number	Registration Date	Goods/Services
KENDRA SCOTT	3125314	August 8, 2006	Class 14: jewelry
KENDRA SCOTT	4963203	May 24, 2016	Class 35: retail jewelry store services; online retail jewelry store services; retail and online retail store services featuring jewelry, jewelry bags and cases, jewelry pouches, jewelry organizer pouches and rolls, cosmetic cases, train cases, travel cases, toiletry bags sold empty, hand bags, and purses; presentation of jewelry, jewelry bags and cases, jewelry pouches, jewelry organizer pouches and rolls, travel cases, toiletry bags sold empty, cosmetic cases, train cases, hand bags, purses, on communication media, for retail purposes; sales promotion of jewelry; administrative processing of purchase orders for jewelry
KENDRA SCOTT	5074644	November 1, 2016	Class 3: nail polish and nail enamel
KENDRA SCOTT	4955259	May 10, 2016	Class 18: cosmetic carrying cases sold empty; purses; handbags; wallets; train cases; travel cases; wristlet bags; toiletry bags sold empty
KENDRA SCOTT	5233977	June 27, 2017	Class 14: Jewelry; jewelry rolls; cuff links; jewelry cases; jewelry boxes; jewelry organizer cases; jewelry organizer rolls for travel; charms; earlobe support patch for earrings
KENDRA	3529344	November 4, 2008	Class 14: jewelry

 

Complainant’s trademark registrations are valid and subsisting and the first and last registrations listed above are incontestable. 

 

            FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

a.    Background

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domains within less than 2 weeks of each other, between May 26, 2018 and June 6, 2018.  All of the Disputed Domains resolve to websites that purport to sell jewelry and prominently feature the KENDRA SCOTT mark, along with photographs for which KS owns the copyrights. Additionally, the websites at shopkendrascott.com, kendrascottsale.com, uskendras.com, kendrascottvip.com, kendrascottdeal.com, kendrascotti.com, kendrascottstores.com, kendraiscott.com, kendrascottbeauty.com, kendrascottwichita.com, kendrascottsvip.com, and kendrascottcoupon.com all appear identical, and are an exact or almost exact copy of a version of the Complainants’ official website displayed at kendrascott.com. 

 

The websites displayed at the Disputed Domains appear to be a scam to obtain customers’ credit card information by offering vastly discounted prices on designer jewelry, drawing consumers in by using the KENDRA SCOTT name and mark, and photographs owned by KS LLC, along with other marks of KS. Because many of the websites are nearly identical to the KS website, consumers are highly likely to be drawn in to the sites believing them to be the official KS website. In fact, actual consumer confusion has occurred, and, upon information and belief, their credit card information has been stolen and the consumer received no products.

 

Further, the websites displayed at the Disputed Domains have copied Complainants’ photographs of KS products and KS models from Complainants’ official site at kendrascott.com.

 

In conjunction with the UDRP complaint, Complainants have contacted the website host for the Disputed Domain Names and requested that the content be removed.

 

b.    The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous KENDRA SCOTT Mark. 

 

The domain names kscottstops.com, kendrscotts.com, uskendras.com, kendrascot.com, and kendscottshop.com incorporate an abbreviated or misspelled version of the marks KENDRA SCOTT or KENDRA, with some merely tacking on the generic terms “stops” and “us.” The rest of the domain names contain the KENDRA SCOTT mark in its entirety, sometimes including an extra letter like “s” or “i” or a generic term like “shop,” “sale,” “vip,” “deal,” “stores,” “jewelry,” “beauty,” “top,” “online,” or “coupon,” or the geographic term “wichita.”  The addition of these generic terms and letters does not distinguish the domain from Complainant’s Mark and in fact enhances the likelihood of confusion.  These terms in particular (for example, “shop,” “store,” and “jewelry”) are highly likely to be associated with Complainants and their goods.  Additionally, the generic terms “deal” and “sale” are likely to draw consumers into a credit card phishing scam by appearing to offer significantly discounted jewelry. The presence of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) is irrelevant in a UDRP 4(a)(i) analysis. 

 

c.    Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

i.              Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.  Respondent is using the Disputed Domains in connection with what appears to be the fraudulent sale of jewelry. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i). Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names for websites that attempt to deceive consumers into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is, or is associated with, Complainants.

 

ii.            Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names at issue.  In addition, Complainants have not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the famous KENDRA SCOTT Mark, the mark KENDRA, any other mark owned by Complainants, or any of Complainants’ copyrighted materials.

 

iii.           Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names.

 

iv.           After falsely creating an association with Complainants, Respondent is attempting to gather Internet users’ personal information through a “Contact” page on some of the websites of the Disputed Domains.  The contact form asks visitors to provide information such as their name and email address. Respondent may commercially benefit by abusing this information and/or by selling this information to third parties.  Likewise, upon information and belief, no actual jewelry is being sold through these websites and instead the sites are seeking to obtain credit card information to unlawfully profit from the use of the KENDRA SCOTT and KENDRA marks.

 

d.    Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.

 

i.              The circumstances indicate that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites, in violation of Policy ¶4(b)(iv). 

 

ii.            Complainants had rights in the well-known KENDRA SCOTT Mark for over a decade before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domains, and likewise have had rights in the mark KENDRA for jewelry for nearly a decade before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domains. The fact that the Respondent has used the KENDRA SCOTT mark on its websites and copied all of its photographs from Complainants’ website demonstrates that Respondent was aware of Complainants and their business at the time of registration.

 

iii.           Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names to display websites that imitate Complainant’s website, including use of its trademarks and images, is evidence of bad faith.

 

iv.           Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names in connection with the purported sale of jewelry, the same products offered by Complainants under its famous KENDRA SCOTT Mark and the mark KENDRA, evidences Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domains in bad faith.

 

v.            Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks to improperly obtain consumer credit card information is evidence of bad faith.

       

vi.           Respondent’s bad faith is also evidenced by the fact that it owns no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the Disputed Domain Names, the Disputed Domains do not consist of the legal name of or a name commonly used to identify Respondent, Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Names in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services, Respondent has made no bona fide noncommercial or fair use of Complainants’ marks in a site accessible under the Disputed Domain Names, and Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the highly distinctive marks KENDRA SCOTT and KENDRA.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

(1)          The domain names registered by Respondent are 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 names; and

(3)          The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant claims rights in the (1) KENDRA and (2) KENDRA SCOTT marks based upon its registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Registrations of a mark with a governmental authority, such as the USPTO, is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”). Complainant has rights in the marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i).

 

Complainant claims Respondent’s <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com> ,<kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names are identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant ‘s marks. Some of Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because Respondent merely misspells the mark, adds generic or descriptive terms, and adds a gTLD. The slight misspelling of a mark in a disputed domain name is not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“The addition of letters—particularly of those that create a common misspelling—fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark.”). Adding a generic/descriptive term (including a geographic term) to a complainant’s mark does not generally sufficiently distinguish the mark from a domain name. A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.  See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).); see also Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng, FA 1745812 (Forum Sep. 28, 2017) (“Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis.”). Respondent’s <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com>, <kendrascot.com> and <kendscottshop.com> domain names incorporate misspelled versions of the marks, in addition to the generic terms “stops” and “us”. The rest of the disputed domain names contain the KENDRA SCOTT mark in its entirety, some including the extra letters “s” or “i,” while others include the “shop,” “sale,” “vip,” “deal,” “stores,” “jewelry,” “beauty,” “top,” “online,” and coupon. One of the disputed domain names contain the geographic term “wichita.” Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).  Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).

 

Complainant claims Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com> ,<kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and is not authorized by Complainant to use the marks in any way. Absent information in the record to the contrary (and there is none in this case), the WHOIS information and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).”). There is nothing in the record to suggest Complainant authorized Respondents to use Complainant’s marks in any way (including as part of a domain name). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names as “white jams.” The registrant of the <kendrascottsjewelry.com> domain name is identified as “Romail Tariq.” The registrant of the <kendrascotttop.com> and <vipkendrascott.com> domain names is identified as “JAMS WHITE.” The registrant of the <kendrascot.com> domain name is identified as “Dexter Reading c/o xiang dao xin xi ji shu you xiang gong si.” The registrant of the <kendrascottonline.com> domain name is identified as “Smachetti Paul.” The registrant of the <shopkendrascott.com>, <uskendras.com>, <kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com> and <kendrascottcoupon.com> domain names is identified as “fang bin feng.” The registrant of the <kendrascottsale.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com> and <kendrascotti.com> domain names is identified as “cyl.” None of Respondent’s non de plumes bear any obvious relationship to any of the disputed domain names.  Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent fails to use the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com> ,<kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass itself off as the Complainant. Using a domain name to pass off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent uses the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com> ,<kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names to phish for internet users’ personal information. Using a domain name to phish for internet users’ personal information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).”); see also Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant claims Respondent registered and uses the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com>, <kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant to sell counterfeit copies of Complainant’s products. Using a domain name to pass off as a complainant to sell counterfeit products is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”). Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant claims Respondent uses the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com>, <kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names to phish for internet users’ personal information. Using a domain name to phish for an internet user’s personal information constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See United States Postal Service v. kyle javier, FA 1787265 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information is evidence of bad faith.”). Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain names. A respondent who had knowledge of complainant’s rights in a mark and registered a infringing domain name will be found to be acting in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA1410001584295 (Forum, Nov. 25, 2014) (“Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant’s services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶4(a)(iii) bad faith.”). Respondent appropriated Complainant’s mark and displays images of Complainant’s products (which apparently came from Complainant’s legitimate web site) to use on Respondent’s domains. This does not happen by accident.  Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registration.  Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered the <shopkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottsale.com>, <kscottstops.com>, <kendrscotts.com>, <uskendras.com> ,<kendrascottvip.com>, <kendrascottdeal.com>, <kendrascotti.com>, <kendrascot.com>, <vipkendrascott.com>, <kendrascottstores.com>, <kendraiscott.com>, <kendrascottsjewelry.com>, <kendrascottbeauty.com>, <kendrascottwichita.com>, <kendrascotttop.com>, <kendrascottsvip.com>, <kendrascottonline.com>, <kendrascottcoupon.com>, and <kendscottshop.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated: Monday, August 6, 2018