The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Domain
Contact
Claim
Number: FA0406000282362
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 Domain Contact (“Respondent”), 123456789, Seattle, WA 12345.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <neimanmarcusonline.com>, registered with Namescout.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.
James
A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 28, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 1, 2004.
On
June 8, 2004, Namescout.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <neimanmarcusonline.com> is registered with Namescout.com and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namescout.com has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Namescout.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
June 9, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
June 29, 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@neimanmarcusonline.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
July8,2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Crary 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 <neimanmarcusonline.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <neimanmarcusonline.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <neimanmarcusonline.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, The
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., was established in 1907 as a local specialty store
and has become an internationally recognized innovator in fashion and
merchandise. Complainant has developed
a reputation for high prices as well as high quality, which has made the
“Neiman Marcus” name synonymous with high fashion and world famous
designers.
Complainant
holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office for the NEIMAN MARCUS mark (Reg. No. 601,375, issued April 6,
1954, Reg. No. 601,864, issued May 19, 1954, Reg. No. 601,723, issued February
1, 1955, Reg. No. 1,593,195, issued October 5, 1988, Reg. No. 1,733,202, issued
October 25, 2991). Complainant has used
the NEIMAN MARCUS mark continuously and extensively in connection with its
retail business since 1907. As a result
of nearly a century of use, Complainant has created in NEIMAN MARCUS one of the
most famous and distinctive marks in retailing. The NEIMAN MARCUS trademarks have an invaluable goodwill and
reputation, not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. Complainant operates 35 Neiman Marcus stores
located in premier retail locations in major markets nation wide. Thus, Complainant’s marks are well-known to
the public.
Respondent
registered the <neimanmarcusonline.com> domain name on April 8,
2004 and is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that
hosts a search engine which provides links to a variety of websites and
features a variety of advertisements.
Respondent’s website also offers links to other websites that directly
compete with Complainant’s business.
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 in this proceeding that it has rights in the NEIMAN MARCUS mark
through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by
continuous use of its mark in commerce for the last ninety-seven years. See 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.”); see also Janus
Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding
that Panel decisions have held that 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).
Respondent’s <neimanmarcusonline.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark
because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and only deviates with
the addition of the generic or descriptive word “online.” The mere addition of a generic or
descriptive term does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6,
2001) (“the fact that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s registered
mark is sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes
of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also
Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word
or term); see also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May
18, 2000) (finding the <Westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly
similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has
established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark and has
alleged that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s mark. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of
it allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such
rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain
name it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence
rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the
knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimte interests with respect to
the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that
substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name);
see also Geocities v.
Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent never
submitted a response or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
Moreover, where
Complainant makes the prima facie case and Respondent does not respond,
the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint
as true. 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 Vertical 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 Complaint to be
deemed true).
Respondent is
using the <neimanmarcusonline.com> domain name to redirect
Internet users to a website that features advertising for a variety of goods
and that hosts a popular search engine to link viewers to a variety of
websites, including sites that offer the same type of goods that complainant
offers. Respondent’s use of a domain
name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark to
redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a commercial
website that offers a popular search engine unrelated to Complainant’s products
is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommericial or fair
use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ban of Am. Corp. v. Out Island
Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (holding that
Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a
search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it
lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also U.S.
Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2003)
(holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the goodwill
surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated
business was not a bona fie offering of goods or services).
Moreover,
Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <neimanmarcusonline.com>
domain name. Thus, Respondent has
not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14,
2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not
commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from
Complainant to use the trademarked name); 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).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name for commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet
users wishing to search under Complainant’s well-known mark to Respondent’s
commercial website through the use of a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’ mark. Respondent’s
practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a
confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29,
2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously
connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of
confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Bank of America Corp. v.
Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating
that “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of
Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their
descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused
as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in
holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto. a/k/a Larry
Petersons, FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the
disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain
name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent
website by using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness).
Furthermore,
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a
website that hosts a search engine which provides links to a variety of
websites that directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that, by creating confusion
around Complainant’s mark, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of
a competitor. Respondent’s use of
Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to websites offering goods
similar to Complainant’s goods is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding
Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with Complainant’s business); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns & Matt Oettinger, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15,
2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com>
in bad faith where Respondent has used the domain name to promote competing
auction sites).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <neimanmarcusonline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated:
July 26, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page