Westmore · UDRP DecisionJcrewstore.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <jcrewstore.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the J. CREW trademark because it combined the mark with the generic term “store.” The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad-faith registration and use were established under paragraph 4(b)(iv) because the domain resolved to a commercial website displaying the J. CREW mark and offering J. Crew-branded products, falsely suggesting a relationship with the Complainant.
The timeline behind jcrewstore.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind jcrewstore.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward trademark-plus-retail-term case in which the domain’s composition and associated commercial website pointed in the same direction. The addition of “store” did not distinguish the domain from J. CREW and instead aligned with the Complainant’s apparel business. The website’s use of the mark and sale of branded products was central to the conclusion that it falsely suggested affiliation and intentionally attracted users for commercial gain.
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 J. Crew International, Inc. v. Youchao Wang a.k.a. wang you chao Case No. D2013-0688 1. The Parties The Complainant is J. Crew International, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, PC, United States of America. The Respondent is Youchao Wang a.k.a. wang you chao of Putian, Fujian Province, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <jcrewstore.com> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 12, 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 16, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On April 17, 2013, the Center sent an email communication to the parties regarding the language of proceedings. On April 20, 2013, the Complainant requested English be the language of proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date. The Center verified that the Complaint 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 24, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 14, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 15, 2013. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. Language of Proceedings The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of these proceedings be English on the basis that the website that the disputed domain name resolves to was written in English. The Respondent is clearly conversant in English. The Panel determines in the circumstances of this case that the language of proceedings be English. 4. Factual Background The Complainant and its predecessors have been in the apparel business since 1984. It is the registrant of the trademark J. CREW which has been registered in the United States of American since 1984. The Complainant also operates a website under the domain name <jcrew.com>. The Complainant did not mention or provide evidence of registrations of the trademark J. CREW in China. However, from an online search at China Trade Mark Office the Panel has identified that the Complainant has registered several J.CREW marks in China including a registration in Class 25 with effect from September 7, 2011. For the Panel’s power to conduct searches of this type, see paragraph 4.5 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). The disputed domain name was registered on September 13, 2012. The website under the disputed domain name resolved to a website that bore the trade mark J. CREW and that offered J. Crew branded products. The Respondent has registered numerous other domain names incorporating trademarks such as Levi’s and La Coste. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark J. CREW. It is composed of the Complainant’s trademark J. CREW and the generic term “store”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent has not made any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. Rather the website at the disputed domain name resolves to a site which “displays the heading J. CREW […] and includes copyrighted images and text from Complainant’s website featuring J. CREW products.” The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith with the intention of diverting Internet users to the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings This is a very simple case of domain name hijacking that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <jcrewstore.com> is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark J. CREW and the generic “store”. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 ). The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case. Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name <jcrewstore.com> was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolved to a commercial websites that falsely suggested that it was related to the Complainant. This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”. The third element of the UDRP is made out. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <jcrewstore.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: June 13, 2013
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around jcrewstore.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.