Victoriassecretangel.com

The timeline behind victoriassecretangel.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. SP c/o Dave Saavedra Claim Number: FA0805001195249 PARTIES Complainant is Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise Blakeslee, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, USA. Respondent is SP c/o Dave Saaverdra (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <victoriassecretangel.com>, registered with Udomainname.com LLC. PANEL 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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 27, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 28, 2008. On June 9, 2008, Udomainname.com LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name is registered with Udomainname.com LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Udomainname.com LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Udomainname.com LLC 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 June 16, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 7, 2008 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@victoriassecretangel.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 10, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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. Respondent’s <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. is the United States record owner of the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. Complainant licenses its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in conjunction with retail stores, print mail order catalogue and e-commerce website all of which are owned and operated by affiliated companies. Through these venues, Complainant merchandizes women’s lingerie, women’s apparel, personal care products, beauty products, swimwear, outerwear and gift items under its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. Complainant’s predecessor first registered the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 20, 1981 (Reg. No. 1,146,199). Complainant holds multiple additional registrations of its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark with the USPTO and other governmental authorities. Respondent registered the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name on January 1, 2007. Respondent’s disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 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 draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). 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 and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence it holds multiple registrations with the USPTO and other governmental authorities for its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. Thus, the Panel finds Complainant has sufficiently established its rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Inertia 3D, FA 1118154 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2008) (“Complainant asserts rights in the mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Respondent’s <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark with the following alterations; the deletion of an apostrophe, the addition of the descriptive term “angel,” and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The deletion of an apostrophe is not significant since apostrophes are not permissible characters in a domain name. See Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Whitney, FA 140656 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (“Punctuation and spaces between words are not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark because punctuation and spaces are not reproducible in a domain name.”). The term “angel” is descriptive of a line of Complainant’s products marketed under its ANGELS BY VICTORIA’S SECRET mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). Additionally, the addition of a top-level domain is not legally relevant in evaluating whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark because it is a required element of every domain name. See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."). Therefore, the Panel finds these alterations do not distinguish Respondent’s <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name from Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark and thus the two are confusingly similar pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name. Complainant must present a prima facie case to support these allegations before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to support its assertions and Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings. Therefore, the Panel may conclude Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, will examine the record and determine if Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”). Respondent’s disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name over the past year demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA 204148 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent's passive holding of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.”). Also, Respondent is not commonly known by the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Dave Saavedra,” and the record indicates Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in any manner. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See America W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has failed to make an active use of the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that failure to make an active use of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <victoriassecretangel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: July 24, 2008 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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