Wigsbyrevlon.com

The timeline behind wigsbyrevlon.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Domains By Proxy, Inc./ International Wig Case No. D2010-1562 1. The Parties Complainant is Revlon Consumer Products Corporation of New York, New York, the United States of America, internally represented. Respondents are Domains By Proxy, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona, the United States of America, and International Wig of Ashland, Oregon, the United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <wigsbyrevlon.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2010. On September 16, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Wild West Domains, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 17, 2010, Wild West Domains, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 20, 2010 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 21, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint as amended satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 22, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 12, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. The Center accordingly notified Respondent’s default on October 13, 2010. The Center appointed Richard G. Lyon as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and has jurisdiction over this administrative proceeding. 1 The Panel has submitted his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant and its affiliated companies make up a well-known enterprise that sells many different types of goods around the world. Its total worldwide sales last year exceeded USD 1 billion. Though best known for cosmetics and similar beauty products, through a licensee it does a substantial business selling wigs and hairpieces. Complainant owns fourteen trademarks for the word REVLON, standing alone, in the United States of America that are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The earliest of these submitted with the Complaint is dated 1990, with a claimed first use in commerce of 1950. Complainant holds many other trademarks for REVLON in other countries that have been duly registered with the appropriate governmental authorities. Complainant has never transacted any business with Respondent and has never authorized Respondent to use any of its trademarks. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 27, 2010. The website at the disputed domain name consists of hyperlinks to sites that sell hairpieces or beauty products. 5. Parties’ Contentions Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered REVLON trademarks; that Respondent lacks rights or any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar. Complainant has shown rights in its registered REVLON marks and the dominant feature of the disputed domain name is identical to those marks. Although Complainant’s wig and hairpiece products are sold through a licensee, it is Complainant that “has rights” in the REVLON marks, granting it standing to bring this proceeding. See Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests; Bad Faith The record reveals no rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name, and the evidence furnished by Complainant demonstrates that Respondent falls clearly within the example of evidence of bad faith set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The content at the parking page to which the disputed domain name resolves is textbook cybersquatting – obtaining click-through revenues from links to products competitive to those of Complainant. These links reveal Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant and its distinctive marks, and use intended to trade off the value of those marks. The links have existed since shortly after registration of the disputed domain name, so there is no question that Respondent both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant has met its burden of proof under each of the three operative clauses of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <wigsbyrevlon.com> be transferred to Complainant. Richard G. Lyon Sole Panelist Dated: October 27, 2010 1 As the courier service employed by the Center made actual delivery of the Complaint, there is no jurisdictional issue. See Rules, paragraph 2(a).

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.