Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Huh
Jinwang
Claim Number: FA0204000109047
PARTIES
Complainant
is The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.,
Dallas, TX (“Complainant”) represented by David
J. Steele, of Christie, Parker &
Hale LLP. Respondent is Huh Jinwang, Dong-gu Daegu, KOREA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <neimanmarcus.net>,
registered with OnlineNIC, 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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically
on April 3, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on April 5,
2002.
On
April 4, 2002, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <neimanmarcus.net> is
registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, Inc. 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
April 8, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 18,
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@neimanmarcus.net 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
May 13, 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
disputed domain name <neimanmarcus.net>
is confusingly similar to NEIMAN MARCUS and NEIMAN-MARCUS (collectively, the
“NEIMAN MARCUS marks”), registered marks in which Complainant
holds rights.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant’s principal retail chain, the
Neiman Marcus Company, was established in 1907 as a specialty store that has
now become
an internationally recognized innovator in fashion and
merchandise. Complainant has developed,
through its NEIMAN MARCUS marks, a reputation for high prices and high quality
in the retail fashion world.
Complainant operates thirty-one retail stores, and it reports that
hundreds of thousands of consumers hold its NEIMAN MARCUS branded
charge
accounts.
Complainant owns several trademarks in
NEIMAN-MARCUS and NEIMAN MARCUS, registered on the Principal Register of the
United States
Patent and Trademark Office as early as January 1955 (Reg. No.
601,375). Complainant also operates a
website at <neimanmarcus.com> to further its retail operations.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on November 14, 2001. Respondent’s only use of the domain name is
to operate a web site created solely to sell the domain name. As Respondent
explains on
its website. “We regret to say that this web site is not operate
[sic] any more. We decided to sell the
web site. So, if you [sic] interested in buying it, contact us.” At first glance, Respondent’s web site
creates the impression that at one point Respondent actually operated a
consulting company
named “NeimanMarcus Consulting Inc.” However, no such company actually
exists. Repeated searches failed to
reveal any information on any ongoing business concern so named. In fact, Respondent has merely crafted this
facade of a web site to create the appearance that some legitimate business
concern had
in fact registered and was using the domain name.
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 through registration and use has established it
has rights in the the NEIMAN MARCUS marks.
Therefore, Respondent’s <neimanmarcus.net>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered marks because the
addition of a top level domain name like “.net” does not affect
a mark for the
purpose of determining whether it is identical to the domain name. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
(finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does
not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar); see also Little Six, Inc., v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to
Complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE
trademark and service mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The
fame of Complainant’s marks is sufficient to show that Respondent could not be
commonly known by the marks. See Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was
not commonly known by a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s
VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the
mark). As a result, Respondent does not
have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue because
Respondent is not commonly
known by the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark).
Respondent’s offer to sell the domain
name suggests that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork,
D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to
sell domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
Also,
there is no evidence that demonstrates that Respondent has made any legitimate,
noncommercial or fair use of the <neimanmarcus.net> domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) nor is there evidence of a bona fide offering
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Chanel,
Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where "Respondent registered the domain name and did
nothing with it").
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent’s
registration of Complainant’s famous mark in its entirety for Respondent’s
domain name is evidence of bad faith. See Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028
(WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith when (1) the domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, (2) the
mark is a coined word, well-known
and in use prior to Respondent’s registration of the domain name, and (3)
Respondent fails to allege
any good faith basis for use of the domain name).
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
should be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <neimanmarcus.net> domain name be
transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/732.html