J. Crew International, Inc. v. Blue Face
Claim Number: FA2206001999906
Complainant is J. Crew International, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joel Karni Schmidt of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Blue Face ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <jcrewonlineshop.us>, registered with 1API GmbH.
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 10, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 10, 2022.
On June 13, 2022, 1API GmbH confirmed by email to the Forum that the <jcrewonlineshop.us> domain name is registered with 1API GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1API GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1API GmbH registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On June 14, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 5, 2022 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@jcrewonlineshop.us. Also on June 14, 2022, 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 7, 2022, 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 (together with its predecessors and affiliated companies) has used the J. CREW mark in connection with the apparel business since 1983. Complainant's sales exceeded $2.4 billion on 2018, of which nearly $1.8 billion fell under the J. CREW brand. Complainant owns registrations for J. CREW in the United States and other countries around the world, and asserts that the mark is famous.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <jcrewonlineshop.us> in February 2022. The domain name is being used for a website that prominently displays Complainant's mark in the stylized form used by Complainant, and that offers or purports to offer various apparel products for sale. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to engage in fraudulent or phishing activities. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not a licensee of Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <jcrewonlineshop.us> is confusingly similar to its J. CREW mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed 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 or 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <jcrewonlineshop.us> incorporates Complainant's registered J. CREW trademark, omitting the period and space, and adds the generic terms "online" and "shop" and the ".us" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Fashion Nova, LLC v. Blue Face, FA 1966519 (Forum Nov. 1, 2021) (finding <fashionnovastopshop.us> confusingly similar to FASHION NOVA); J. Crew International, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, D2018-2770 (WIPO Feb. 4, 2019) (finding <jcrewshops.com> confusingly similar to J. CREW). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
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 Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a commercial website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Fashion Nova, LLC v. Blue Face, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); J. Crew International, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, supra (same).
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 or is being 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 registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark without authorization, and is using it for a commercial website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Fashion Nova, LLC v. Blue Face, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); J. Crew International, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jcrewonlineshop.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 8, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page