Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Henry
Chan
Claim
Number: FA0405000268503
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 Henry Chan (“Respondent”), P.O. Box SS-63448/A124, Nassau, Bahamas.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <neimanmarcuskids.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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 6, 2004; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 7, 2004.
On
May 7, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to
the Forum that the domain name <neimanmarcuskids.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
May 11, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
June 1, 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@neimanmarcuskids.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
June 4, 2004, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <neimanmarcuskids.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <neimanmarcuskids.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <neimanmarcuskids.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 owns several
United States registrations 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 and Reg. No.
1,733,202
issued September 5, 1943).
Complainant
operates 35 Neiman Marcus stores located in premier retail locations in major
markets nationwide. In the Fall of 1999,
Complainant expanded its retailing strategy by launching an e-commerce website
available at <neimanmarcus.com>.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name April 13, 2004. Respondent is using the
domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial
websites displaying banner
advertisements similar to Complainant’s fashion and merchandise.
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 with extrinsic proof 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).
The domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark because the domain
name incorporates Complainant’s mark
and simply adds the generic or descriptive
word “kids.” The mere addition of a
generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing
similarity of Respondent’s domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s
registered mark “llbean”
does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark
nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also 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 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
alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s
mark. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
Complainant, 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 its
allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it
does have such
rights or legitimate interests 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under
certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has
no
right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to
Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate
interest does exist).
Moreover, where
Complainant makes the prima facie showing 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 Complainant to be deemed true).
Respondent is
using the <neimanmarcuskids.com> domain name to redirect Internet
users to a commercial website displaying banner advertisements for goods
identical to those offered
by Complainant.
Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
NEIMAN MARCUS mark to redirect Internet users interested in
Complainant’s
products to a commercial website that offers identical goods is not a use in
connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name
pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Bank of America 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 Am.
Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that “it would
be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s
operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark and for the same business”); 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 fide 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
<neimanmarcuskids.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); see also Broadcom
Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent was not commonly
known by
the disputed domain name nor was Responondent using the domain name in
connection with a legitimate or fair use).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
intentionally registered a domain name that contains in its entirety
Complainant’s well-known mark and did so for Respondent’s
commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet
users who seek Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark to Respondent’s commercial
website through
the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark. Moreover,
Respondent is unfairly and opportunistically benefiting from the goodwill
associated with Complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain,
constitutes 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 eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2001-0068 (WIPO
Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent is taking advantage of the
recognition that eBay has created
for its mark and therefore profiting by
diverting users seeking the eBay website to Respondent’s site); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt.,
FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged
in bad faith use and registration by linking the
domain name to a website that
offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to
attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to its website by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by
redirecting Internet traffic intended for
Complainant to Respondent’s website
that directly competed with Complainant.
Registration of a domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA
94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and
used the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business of
Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts under the domain name
<openmail.com> which is identical
to Complainant’s services under the
OPENMAIL mark); see also Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters.,
FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2003) (finding evidence of bad faith use and registration where Respondent and
Complainant both operated in the highly regulated field of
radio broadcasting
and Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s call
letters).
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 <neimanmarcuskids.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
June 18, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/729.html