Sothebychina.com

The timeline behind sothebychina.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 Sotheby's v. daomin kan Claim Number: FA0902001247971 PARTIES Complainant is Sotheby's (“Complainant”), represented by Sujata Chaudhri, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is daomin kan (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sothebychina.com>, registered with 35 Technology Co., Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 17, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 19, 2009. On March 4, 2009, 35 Technology Co., Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sothebychina.com> domain name is registered with 35 Technology Co., Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 35 Technology Co., Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the 35 Technology Co., Ltd 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 March 10, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 30, 2009 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@sothebychina.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 6, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 <sothebychina.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOTHEBY’S mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebychina.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <sothebychina.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Sotheby’s, is engaged in the auction business and has developed a reputation as a premier auction house for the sale of jewelry, fine art and other collectibles since 1744. Complainant operates its business in countries around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom and China. Respondent owns a trademark registration for the SOTHEBY’S mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,638,329 issued March 19, 1991). Respondent registered the <sothebychina.com> domain name on June 2, 2008. Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SOTHEBY’S mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark it its entirety, adds the geographic location “china,” omits an apostrophe and the letter “s,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that a disputed domain name that contains a complainant’s mark and adds a geographic location, especially a location of the complainant’s business operations as is the case here, creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See CMGI, Inc. v. Reyes, D2000-0572 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2000) (finding that the domain name <cmgiasia.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s CMGI mark). In addition, the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD and the omission of an apostrophe and the letter “s” is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark. 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 . . . ."); see also LOreal USA Creative Inc v. Syncopate.com – Smart Names for Startups, FA 203944 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the omission of an apostrophe did not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Victoria's Secret v. Internet Inv. Firm Trust, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding the domain name <victoriasecret.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET). Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that Respondent’s <sothebychina.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOTHEBY’S mark. The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that rights or legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case and the burden is shifted to Respondent. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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.”); see also Law Soc’y of Hong Kong v. Domain Strategy, Inc., HK-0200015 (ADNDRC Feb. 12, 2003) (“A respondent is not obligated to participate in a domain name dispute . . . but the failure to participate leaves a respondent vulnerable to the inferences that flow naturally from the assertions of the complainant and the tribunal will accept as established assertions by the complainant that are not unreasonable.”). However, the Panel will examine the evidence on record against the applicable ¶ 4(c) elements before making a final determination with regards to Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests. Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by, nor licensed to register the <sothebychina.com> domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “daomin kan,” thus giving no affirmative evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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.”); see also 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). Complainant claims that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the <sothebychina.com> domain name because it resolves to a blank website template. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (“Merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that it may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that it is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith 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 Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use). The Panel finds that 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 <sothebychina.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: April 20, 2009 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.