Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Music
Wave
Claim
Number: FA0304000153537
Complainant is
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA (“Complainant”) represented
by David J. Steele, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP. Respondent
is Music Wave, Geneva, CH (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com>, registered with Computer Services
Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.Com.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 31, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 2, 2003.
On
April 4, 2003, Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.Com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com> are registered with Computer Services
Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.Com and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the names.
Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.Com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh
d/b/a
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
April 4, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 24, 2003 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@neimunmarcus.com, postmaster@neminmarcus.com, postmaster@newmanmarcus.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
May 5, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <neimunmarcus.com>,
<neminmarcus.com> and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <neimunmarcus.com>,
<neminmarcus.com> and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names
in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, The
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., holds several trademark registrations for the NEIMAN
MARCUS mark (e.g., U.S. Reg. No. 1,733,202, registered on the Principal
Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 17, 1992).
Complainant
has operated under this mark since 1907 as a specialty retailer of
high priced fashion apparel and merchandise. Complainant operates
thirty-five
retail stores in the U.S. as well as an online retail website at the
<neimanmarcus.com> domain name. Under the
NEIMAN MARCUS mark, Complainant
generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales revenues during the past
year.
Respondent,
Music Wave, registered the <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names on January 25, 2002, and is
not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark for any
purpose. Respondent
redirects Internet users who access the disputed domain
names to an adult-oriented website at <hanky-panky-college.com> while
also displaying pop-up advertisements.
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 NEIMAN MARCUS mark through registration of the mark
on the Principal Register of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, as well as
through widespread and continuous use of the mark in commerce for nearly a
century.
Respondent’s <neimunmarcus.com>,
<neminmarcus.com> and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names
are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark. Each domain name is a simple misspelling of
the word NEIMAN in Complainant’s distinctive mark,
either by replacing the
letter “a” with a different vowel or altering the spelling of the first
syllable of Complainant’s mark. The
overall impression of the disputed domain
names remains Complainant’s mark, and each is confusingly similar to that mark
for purposes
of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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, Respondent does not create
a distinct mark but nevertheless
renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
On this element,
as on every provision under Policy paragraph 4(a), Complainant carries the
initial burden of demonstrating that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is able to meet this burden
by showing that Respondent
would not be able to rely upon the examples of
circumstances demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in a domain name
listed
in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii). In making such a showing, Complainant
establishes a prima facie case against Respondent, shifting the burden
to Respondent. As Respondent failed to file a response to the Complaint,
Respondent’s
default results in an inference that it has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate 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).
Respondent uses
the disputed domain names, each infringing on Complainant’s distinctive NEIMAN
MARCUS mark, to redirect Internet users
to an adult-oriented website. Using
Complainant’s mark to misdirect Internet users who inadvertently type in the
URL for one of the
disputed domain names instead of Complainant’s website is
not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
Considering that those misdirected
Internet users are also subjected to a series of pop-up advertisements,
Respondent’s misdirection also fails
to qualify as a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of the domain names 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 Toronto-Dominion
Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d
110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because
Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion
with Complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any other fair
use).
Given the
widespread fame and goodwill surrounding the distinctive NEIMAN MARCUS mark and
the fact that Respondent’s domain names
are mere misspellings of this mark, the
Panel finds that Respondent is not “commonly known by” any of the disputed
domain names pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See MRA Holding, LLC v. Costnet,
FA 140454 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2003) (noting that “the disputed domain name
does not even correctly spell a cognizable phrase” in finding that Respondent
was not “commonly known by”
the name GIRLS GON WILD or <girlsgonwild.com>);
see also 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com> and <newmanmarcus.com>
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Each of the
infringing domain names relies on the fact that they are misspellings of
Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark to attract Internet
users. Such infringements
on Complainant’s mark are likely to confuse Internet users who mistakenly
access the disputed domain names
as to whether Complainant sponsors, or is
somehow affiliated with, the domain names. This likelihood of confusion earns
Respondent
commercial gain, i.e. the revenue Respondent presumably receives
from both pop-up advertisements and referral fees from the <hanky-panky-college.com>
domain name. Thus, Respondent’s activities evidence bad faith registration and
use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D.
Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21,
2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly
similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website);
see
also Geocities v. Geociites.com,
D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the
domain name in question to websites displaying banner
advertisements and
pornographic material).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <neimunmarcus.com>, <neminmarcus.com>
and <newmanmarcus.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
May 12, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/480.html