DECISION

 

Jaipur Living, Inc. v. ZhangShifeng

Claim Number: FA2310002066075

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Jaipur Living, Inc. ("Complainant"), Georgia, USA represented by Jason Aquilino of Aqualino Law, LLC. Respondent is ZhangShifeng ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jaipurlivingrug.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 12, 2023. Forum received payment on October 12, 2023.

 

On October 13, 2023, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. 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 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 13, 2023 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@jaipurlivingrug.com. Also on October 23, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 14, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Jaipur Living, Inc., is a well-known manufacturer and seller of high-quality rugs made in India and sold under the brand name and trademark JAIPUR LIVING, in which Complainant has rights through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Respondent's <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JAIPUR LIVING mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name. All authorized resellers of Complainant must be registered and contracted with Complainant. As part of the reseller agreement, an authorized reseller is not allowed to use Complainant's trademark in a domain name. Respondent is not an authorized reseller of Complainant's rugs. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in connection with the purported sale of the exact same rugs that Complainant manufactures and sells. The website hosted at the domain name reproduces without authorization photographs of Complainant's rugs. Many of those photographs were created and are owned by Complainant.

 

Respondent registered the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JAIPUR LIVING mark and uses it in bad faith for a website using photographs stolen from

Complainant's own website for the purpose of purporting to sell Complainant's products at competitively low prices. However, Complainant does not supply its products to anyone operating with the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name, so there is no way that Respondent could be selling authentic products. The only possibility is that the website and the domain name are part of either a scam website or a counterfeit website. Finally, the address provided on the website hosted at the domain name does not appear to be a real physical address. Respondent is located in China, purporting to run a business located in the United States at an address that does not exist. Using a false address is clear evidence of a bad faith operation.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(i)                      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)                      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)                      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 as 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ('Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint').

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the JAIPUR LIVING mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,135,785, registered on February 7, 2017 for various products, including rugs). The Panel finds Respondent's <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, only differing by the addition of the generic word "rug", which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"), which may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)         Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The Panel notes that there is no evidence that Respondent, ZhangShifeng, has been commonly known by the domain name.

 

The <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name was registered on February 18, 2023, several years after Complainant registered its JAIPUR LIVING mark. It resolves to a website which prominently displays Complainant's JAIPUR LIVING mark; photographs of rugs copied from Complainant's website; and purports to offer Complainant's rugs for sale at heavily discounted prices.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iv)        by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's JAIPUR LIVING mark when Respondent registered the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's website and of the goods promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jaipurlivingrug.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: November 19, 2023