The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Alvaro
Collazo
Claim
Number: FA0403000248954
Complainant is The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by David J. Steele, of Christie Parker & Hale LLP, 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 6000, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Respondent is Alvaro Collazo (“Respondent”), Manuel Oribe 2028, Tarariras,
Colonia 70000, R.O.U.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com>, registered with Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.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
Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 24, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 24, 2004.
On
March 24, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com> is
registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
March 30, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 19, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@wwwbergdorfgoodman.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
April 29, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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."
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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BERGDORF GOODMAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant owns
and operates the world-famous “Bergdorf Goodman” retail stores. In connection therewith, Complainant owns
numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) for the BERGDORF GOODMAN mark including registration numbers 674,632
(issued Feb. 24, 1959 for “ladies’ coats, suits, and dresses”), 992,733 (issued
Sept. 3, 1974 for “retail specialty department store services”), 866,011
(issued Mar. 11, 1969 for “perfumes, cologne, bath oil, dusting powder, shaving
soap, after shave lotion, personal deodorants, and hair dressings”), and
845,203 (issued Feb. 27, 1968 for “fur storage service”).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com> on
March 2, 2004. The domain name is not
attached to an active website.
Previously,
Respondent signed a written agreement with Complainant to refrain from
cybersquatting upon Complainant’s marks.
Paragraph 4 of the written agreement, which was dated June 10, 2003,
includes the following forbiddance:
4. Subsequent Restriction on Addition Domain
Name Registrations. After execution of
this Agreement, [Respondent] agrees not to register any Internet domain name
that uses or incorporates, in whole or in part, [The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.]
TRADEMARKS or any combination thereof, or any confusingly similar mark thereto,
without the express prior written consent of a corporate officer of [The Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc.].
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."
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.
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.
Complainant has
established rights in the BERGDORF GOODMAN mark as a result of its registrations
with the USPTO. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption; see also Men’s
Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002)
(“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are
inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”).
Domain names
that contain third-party marks in their entirety and merely affix the prefix
“www” to the marks have consistently been found to be confusingly similar to
the marks under the Policy. In this
case, the disputed domain name contains Complainant’s BERGDORF GOODMAN mark in
its entirety, along with the prefix “www.” Consequently, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos,
FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) finding that Respondent’s domain name
<wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered
trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error
(eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users
commonly make when searching on the Internet”; see also Marie Claire Album v. Geoffrey Blakely,
D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) holding that the letters "www" are
not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus Respondent 's
<wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's
MARIE CLAIRE trademark; see also
Dana Corporation v. $$$ This Domain Name Is For Sale $$$, FA 117328
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2002) finding Respondent's <wwwdana.com> domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant's registered DANA mark because
Complainant's mark remains the dominant feature.
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Failing to
respond to a complaint under the Policy has been consistently held as evidence
that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain
name. Here, Respondent has failed to
respond to the Complaint. Therefore,
the Panel may construe Respondent’s failure as an implicit admission that it
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names; see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)
finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond.
Respondent has
registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The domain name is an obvious misspelling of
Complainant’s mark intended to capitalize on a frequent Internet-user mistake,
forgetting to type a period after “www”.
The Panel finds that this use does is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June
7, 2000) finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are
misspellings of Complainant's mark; see
also Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******,
FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of
Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis
Complainant. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) finding that the WHOIS information, and its
failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name,
is a factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply; see
also Gallup Inc. v. Amish
Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) finding that
Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark.
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has asserted that Respondent has registered and used the
disputed domain name in bad faith.
Respondent has failed to rebut this assertion. Therefore, the Panel may reasonably infer that Respondent has
registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.”); see also Vert. Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-marketing, Inc.,
FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) holding that Respondent’s failure to
respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of
Complainant to be deemed true.
The factors
listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) are intended to be illustrative and non-exclusive of
other factors that may lend the inference of bad faith registration and use to
a panel. Thus, circumstances outside
the expressly outlined factors may be considered by the Panel in reaching its
conclusions. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO
Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to
be illustrative, rather than exclusive”); see also CBS Broad., Inc.
v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy
expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain
name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”); see also Home
Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7,
2000) (“[J]ust because Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the
‘particular’ circumstances set out in ¶4(b), does not mean that the domain
names at issue were not registered in and are not being used in bad faith.”).
Respondent has
engaged in the practice of typosquatting.
Typosquatting, itself, is evidence of bad faith registration and use
under the Policy. See Nat’l Ass’n
of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling
of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended
destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of
itself evidence of bad faith”); see
also Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net
1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) holding that an “absence
of a dot between the ‘www’ and
‘canadiantire.com’ [in the <wwwcanadiantire.com> domain name is] likely
to confuse Internet users, encourage them to access Respondent’s site” and
evidenced bad faith registration and use of the domain name.
The fact that
Respondent entered into a written agreement with Complainant means that
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks. Respondent willfully ignored or disregarded
such rights, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the
Policy. See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys.,
FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“there is a legal presumption of bad
faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be
similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse.").
Moreover, any
future use of the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark would
merely allow Respondent to capitalize from Internet-user mistakes that occur in
the process of searching for Complainant.
See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone,
D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) finding bad faith where Respondent failed to
provide any evidence to controvert Complainant's allegation that it registered
the domain name in bad faith and where any future use of the domain name would
do nothing but cause confusion with Complainant’s mark
Complainant has
established 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 <wwwbergdorfgoodman.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated:
May 13, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page