Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. John
Zuccarini
Claim Number: FA0206000114709
PARTIES
Complainant
is The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.,
Dallas, TX (“Complainant”) represented by David
J. Steele, of Christie, Parker &
Hale LLP. Respondent is John Zuccarini, Andalusia, PA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <niemenmarcus.com>,
registered with Joker.com.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 25, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 28, 2002.
On
July 1, 2002, Joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <niemenmarcus.com> is registered
with Joker.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Joker.com has verified that Respondent is
bound by the Joker.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
July 1, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of July 22,
2002 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@niemenmarcus.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
August 1, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the
Honorable Charles K.
McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<niemenmarcus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant's NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Since 1907, Complainant has used the
NEIMAN MARCUS mark in commerce in relation to apparel and retail store
services. Complainant has registered
several NEIMAN MARCUS marks with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. Complainant has developed a
reputation for high quality merchandise and high fashion. Complainant has used its NEIMAN MARCUS mark
for nearly a century and as a result its mark is one of the most famous in
retailing. The NEIMAN MARCUS mark is
known throughout the world. Complainant
operates thirty-one stores in premier retail locations world-wide. Complainant has a website at
<neimanmarcus.com>.
Respondent is a well-known cybersquatter
named John Zuccarini. Respondent has
registered thousands of misspellings of well-known marks, and has been the
Respondent in countless UDRP domain name
disputes. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 12,
1999. Respondent is using the <niemenmarcus.com>
domain name to divert Internet users to <hanky-pank-college.com>, a
pornographic website. Respondent also
subjects Internet users to numerous pop-up advertisements.
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.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(2)
the 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has
rights to the NEIMAN MARCUS mark through registration and continuous use. Respondent’s <niemenmarcus.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely replaces
the “a” in “neiman”
with an “e,” and transposes the vowels “ei” to “ie.” The misspelling of a
well-known mark in a domain name does
not create a distinct mark capable of
overcoming a claim of confusing similarity.
See Reuters Ltd. v. Global
Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name
which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency
to be
confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly
distinctive); see also Victoria’s
Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding
that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s marks).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response, and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests
in the disputed 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).
Furthermore, when Respondent fails to
submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of
Complainant. 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”).
Respondent is using a domain name that is
a common misspelling of Complainant’s famous NEIMAN MARCUS mark in order to
redirect Internet
traffic interested in Complainant to Respondent’s
pornographic website. The use of a
confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users interested in
Complainant to Respondent’s website is not considered
to be a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain
name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a legitimate use of the
domain name); see also Encyclopaedia
Brittanica, 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).
Respondent has not come forward with any
evidence to establish that it is commonly known as NEIMEN MARCUS or <niemenmarcus.com>. Therefore, Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i). See 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); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not
commonly known by
the disputed domain name or using the domain name in
connection with a legitimate or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using a common misspelling
of Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark in order divert Internet users to
Respondent’s website
for Respondent’s commercial gain. The use of a domain name that is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s famous mark for commercial gain is evidence of bad
faith use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See State Fair of Texas v.
Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith
where Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe
on
Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent
Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith
where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract
users
to a website sponsored by Respondent).
Furthermore, Respondent is using a
confusingly similar domain name in order to divert Internet users to a website
that features pornography
and pop-up advertisements. This type of use is considered to be bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii). See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
(WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain
name in question to websites displaying
banner advertisements and pornographic
material); see also MatchNet plc.
v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the
association of a confusingly similar domain name with a pornographic website
can
constitute bad faith).
Based on the fact that Respondent
registered a domain name that is a misspelling of Complainant’s famous mark it
can be inferred that
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when
it registered the disputed domain name.
Registration of <niemenmarcus.com> despite Respondent’s
knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NEIMAN MARCUS mark is evidence of bad
faith registration pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp.
v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that
evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time of registration); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000)
(finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s
EXXON mark given
the world-wide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent
registered the domain name in bad faith).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <niemenmarcus.com> be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 7, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1359.html