Yourperfectwedding.com

The timeline behind yourperfectwedding.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.

DECISION Two Design Group L.P. v. Joe Tejeda d/b/a Elegant Entertainment Claim Number: FA0302000146221 PARTIES Complainant is Two Design Group L.P., Dallas, TX, (“Complainant”) represented by Patrick W. Fletcher of Fletcher Law Offices. Respondent is Joe Tejeda d/b/a Elegant Entertainment, Los Angeles, CA, (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <yourperfectwedding.com> registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 19, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 21, 2003. On February 19, 2003, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <yourperfectwedding.com> is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 February 25, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 17, 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@yourperfectwedding.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 March 25, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 makes the following assertions: 1. The domain name registered by Respondent, <yourperfectwedding.com>, is identical to Complainant’s YOUR PERFECT WEDDING mark. 2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the YOUR PERFECT WEDDING mark (Reg. No.2,669,024 registered December 31, 2002) in relation to flower arranging services for wedding receptions and ceremonies, and consultation services in the field of decorating for wedding receptions and ceremonies. Complainant registered the <yourperfectwedding.net> domain name, which resolves to Complainant’s website where customers can peruse Complainant’s wedding floral and decor services. Respondent registered the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name on October 8, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to encourage offers to buy the domain name registration. 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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel 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. Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant established in this proceeding that it has rights in the YOUR PERFECT WEDDING mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use in commerce since January 1, 1999. The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000). See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist. Rights in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications); see also British Broadcasting Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”). The domain name registered by Respondent, <yourperfectwedding.com>, is identical to Complainant’s registered mark because the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and omits the spaces between the words and adds the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” to the end of the mark. The omission of spaces does not significantly differentiate the domain name from the mark because spaces are not permissible in domain names. The addition of the gTLD similarly fails to distinguish the domain name from the mark because gTLDs are a requirement for domain names on the Internet. See Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) aff’d 152 F3d 920 (2nd Cir. 1998) cert. denied 525 U.S. 834 (1998) (finding plaintiff’s PLANNED PARENTHOOD mark and defendant’s <plannedparenthood.com> domain name nearly identical); see also Technology Prop., Inc. v. Burris, FA 94424 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding that the domain name <radioshack.net> is identical to Complainant’s mark, RADIO SHACK). The Panel has determined that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been demonstrated. Rights to or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not submitted a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations in the Complaint as true. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard”); 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). Moreover, Respondent has not provided the Panel with any circumstances and there is no evidence in the record to establish that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Respondent is using the disputed domain name to encourage offers to buy the registration of the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name. The Panel may infer that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because Respondent’s only use of the domain name has been to attempt to sell its registration. See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use). Respondent has not come forward with any evidence and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by YOUR PERFECT WEDDING or <yourperfectwedding.com>. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain 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 a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"). The Panel has determined that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been demonstrated. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name to encourage potential buyers of the domain name registration to make an offer to Respondent. Respondent, through its agent Alan Tejeda, directly offered to sell the domain name registration to Complainant. These circumstances indicate that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name registration to Complainant, or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was evidence of bad faith); see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Meeting Point Co., D2000-1245 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain names except to offer them to sale to the Complainant). The Panel has determined that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been demonstrated. DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <yourperfectwedding.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: April 3, 2003 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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