Ilouisvuitton.biz + 3 more domains

The timeline behind ilouisvuitton.biz

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. v. david c/o turon mark and chinahyt c/o chinahyt chinahyt and David c/o David David Claim Number: FA0806001213021 PARTIES Complainant is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation, California, USA. Respondent is david c/o turon mark and chinahyt c/o chinahyt chinahyt and David c/o David David (collectively “Respondent”), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain name at issue are <ilouisvuitton.biz>, <lvbagz.com>, <louisvuittonbagz.com> and <louisvuittonestore.com>, registered with Enom, Inc. 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. Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 27, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 30, 2008. On June 30, 2008, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ilouisvuitton.biz>, <lvbagz.com>, <louisvuittonbagz.com> and <louisvuittonestore.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. 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 July 9, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 29, 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@ilouisvuitton.biz, postmaster@lvbagz.com, postmaster@louisvuittonbagz.com and postmaster@louisvuittonestore.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 5, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <ilouisvuitton.biz>, <lvbagz.com>, <louisvuittonbagz.com> and <louisvuittonestore.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOUIS VUITTON and LV marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ilouisvuitton.biz>, <lvbagz.com>, <louisvuittonbagz.com> and <louisvuittonestore.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <ilouisvuitton.biz>, <lvbagz.com>, <louisvuittonbagz.com> and <louisvuittonestore.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has registered both the LOUIS VUITTON and LV marks for a variety of luxury goods and products in numerous jurisdictions across the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,990,760 issued August 6, 1996 and Reg. No. 1,643,625 issued May 7, 1991 respectively). The <ilouisvuitton.biz> domain name was registered on March 7, 2008. The <lvbagz.com> domain name was registered on August 5. 2006. The <louisvuittonbagz.com> domain name was registered on November 17, 2006. The <louisvuittonestore.com> domain name was registered on February 7, 2007. Each of the disputed domain names resolves to a website purporting to sell both Complainant’s products and goods along with a variety of products that are in direct competition with those sold under both the LOUIS VUITTON and LV marks. DISCUSSION Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant demonstrates that the same e-mail address “zpq888@gmail.com” is listed for each of the registrations of the disputed domain names. The domain name servers for each of the disputed domain names also happen to be the same: “<dns2.name-services.com.>” and “<dns1.name-services.com>.” Additionally, Complainant argues that a similar pattern of fictitious triple names and false contact information is used in the registrations for each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings. See Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. NONE, FA 1182353 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 13, 2008) (finding the listed aliases to be “the same person or entity, or entities controlled by the same person or entity” because the WHOIS information for each disputed domain name contained the same email address and domain name servers); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Johuathan Invs., Inc. & AOLLNEWS.COM, D2001-0918 (WIPO Sept. 14, 2001) (determining that when service is proper and the respondent(s) fail to respond to the complaint, the panel may accept the complainant’s assertion that the various aliases are the same person or entity as true). Primary Issue 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the LOUIS VUITTON and LV marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)… .”). Each of the disputed domain names contains either the LOUIS VUITTON or LV marks in their entirety. Moreover, each disputed domain name omits the space between words and contains either the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.biz” or “.com.” The <ilouisvuitton.biz> domain name precedes Complainant’s mark with the letter “i.” The <lvbagz.com> and <louisvuittonbagz.com> domain names follow Complainant’s mark with the term “bagz,” a misspelling of the word “bags.” The <louisvuittonestore.com> domain name follows Complainant’s mark with the term “estore.” The omission of the spaces between words and inclusion of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). In addition, the incorporation of generic words, even if slightly misspelled so that “bagz,” represents “bags,” and “estore” represents “store” will not distinguish a disputed domain name. This is especially true when these words describe a service or product offered under Complainant’s mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that the addition of a term descriptive of Complainant’s business insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark.”). Moreover, a single letter added to a disputed domain name will not negate a finding of confusing similarity. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). As a consequence of all of the aforementioned, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests In considering the elements under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), a complainant must first establish a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Complainant has met this threshold and that the burden is accordingly shifted to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”). However, Respondent has failed to reply to the Complaint. Therefore the Pane may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, but will nonetheless examine the record in consideration of the elements listed under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 assertions in this regard.”); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because Respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”). Complainant asserts that it has never granted permission or license to Respondent, under any of its aliases, to use its marks in any way. Furthermore, there is nothing in the WHOIS information for any of the disputed domain names that indicates that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain names. As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name). Additionally, the disputed domain names are being used to resolve to websites that offer Complainant’s goods as well those of Complainant’s competitors. Complainant argues that most, if not all, of the products on these websites are counterfeit or fake versions of Complainant’s products. As such, the Panel may find this to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial of fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).”); see also Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”). The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith As previously stated, Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to a website offering replicas of Complainant’s designer handbags, shoes and sunglasses and other luxury goods. Regardless of whether these goods are specifically replicas or not, there is sufficient evidence to establish that they compete with the goods legitimately sold under Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds such use to establish that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (transferring the <fossilwatch.com> domain name from the respondent, a watch dealer not otherwise authorized to sell the complainant’s goods, to the complainant); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent’s sites pass users through to the respondent’s competing business). Furthermore, the disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark and purport to sell either direct or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods, as well as those of Complainant’s competitors, without Complainant’s permission or license. The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain names is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and that this is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the complainant’s famous mark); see also Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Waterlooplein Ltd., FA 109718 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <compaq-broker.com> domain name to sell the complainant’s products “creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's COMPAQ mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website and constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <ilouisvuitton.biz>, <lvbagz.com>, <louisvuittonbagz.com> and <louisvuittonestore.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret,) Dated: August 11, 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.