Officiallivingsocial.com

The timeline behind officiallivingsocial.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 LivingSocial, Inc. v. Amber Robinson Claim Number: FA1310001526840 PARTIES Complainant is LivingSocial, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Amber Robinson (“Respondent”), Canada. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <officiallivingsocial.com>, registered with GODADDY.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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 28, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 1, 2013. On October 28, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <officiallivingsocial.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On November 4, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 25, 2013 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@officiallivingsocial.com. Also on November 4, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 25, 2013. Correspondence was received from Complainant on November 26, 2013, objecting to consideration of the Response on the grounds that it was submitted by a person other than the named Respondent, and that its content contradicts prior statements made by the submitter. The Panel has reviewed the relevant submissions and has decided to consider the Response. On December 3, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is engaged in the direct e-mail and online sale of discounted goods and services. Complainant uses the trademark LIVINGSOCIAL in connection with this business in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. The mark is reflected in Complainant’s domain names, including <LivingSocial.com>, <LivingSocial.co.uk>, <LivingSocial.ca>, and others. Complainant’s LIVINGSOCIAL mark is registered in the United States and the European Community, and Complainant asserts that the mark has become famous. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, <officiallivingsocial.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to its mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that the disputed domain name is being used to forward visitors to the website <www.my‑city‑deals.com>, diverting Complainant’s customers and potential customers for Respondent’s commercial gain. Complainant further states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or by Complainant’s mark; that Respondent is using the mark without Complainant’s consent; and that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. B. Respondent The Response explains that the domain name was registered by the named Respondent on behalf of MyCityDeals.com LTD, and that Complainant’s “confusion” regarding the domain name must have resulted from a misunderstanding, in that the domain name means “off ici all iving so cial” rather than “Official Living Social.” ( “ICI” is apparently an abbreviation for various medical terms; “IV-ing” refers to intravenous therapy; and “cial” is a type of skin treatment.) FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. 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." 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 disputed domain name is comprised of Complainant’s registered trademark, preceded by the word “official” and followed by the “.com” top-level domain suffix. Neither of these additions diminishes the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Montblanc-Simplo G.m.b.H v. Lin Mingshun, D2013-0855 (WIPO July 31, 2013) (finding <officialmontblanc.com confusingly similar to MONTBLANC); see also The North Face Apparel Co. v. Any, FA 1302726 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 3, 2010) (finding <officialnorthface.com confusingly similar to THE NORTH FACE). Even if Respondent’s alternative interpretation of the domain name were plausible, it would not eliminate the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the element of confusing similarity has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Complainant has made its prima facie case, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The evidence before the Panel indicates that the disputed domain name was registered in July 2013 and since that time has been used to divert Internet users to a website that competes directly with Complainant. Such use is indicative of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005). The Panel finds on this basis that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <officiallivingsocial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin Panelist Dated: December 4, 2013 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.