Sferra.shop

The timeline behind sferra.shop

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 Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Theresa W Chavez Claim Number: FA2403002090337 PARTIES Complainant is Sferra Fine Linens, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Neil Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, United States. Respondent is Theresa W Chavez ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sferra.shop>, registered with Sav.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 Forum electronically on March 26, 2024; Forum received payment on March 26, 2024. On March 26, 2024, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <sferra.shop> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.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 March 26, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 15, 2024 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@sferra.shop. Also on March 26, 2024, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 16, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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 Complainant has used the SFERRA trademark in connection with luxury linen related goods and other home and décor items for many years. Complainant owns trademark registrations for SFERRA in standard character form and for related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions worldwide. The disputed domain name <sferra.shop> was registered in February 2024. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public whois record. The domain name is being used for a website that displays the SFERRA mark and offers for sale products similar or identical to those offered by Complainant at heavily discounted prices, in a manner that Complainant alleges is intended to mislead consumers into believing that the website is associated with Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <sferra.shop> is identical or confusingly similar to its SFERRA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical 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 is being 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 and 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. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <sferra.shop> incorporates Complainant's registered SFERRA trademark, adding the ".shop" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Pruvit Ventures, Inc. v. Naibin Jiang, FA 2043325 (Forum June 5, 2023) (finding <pruvit.shop> identical to PRÜVIT); Tommy John, Inc. v. Michael Griffith, FA 2035942 (Forum Apr. 10, 2023) (finding <tommyjohn.shop> identical to TOMMY JOHN); Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Dong Song, FA 2017342 (Forum Nov. 21, 2022) (finding <sferras.com> confusingly similar to SFERRA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights. 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 Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote directly competing and likely counterfeit products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Teton Outfitters, L.L.C. v. Theresa W Chavez, FA 2076808 (Forum Jan. 19, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Pruvit Ventures, Inc. v. Naibin Jiang, supra (same); Toptal, LLC v. Theresa W Chavez, FA 2035060 (Forum Apr. 10, 2023) (same); Tommy John, Inc. v. Michael Griffith, supra (same); BA&SH v. Theresa W Chavez, D2023-0373 (WIPO Mar. 24, 2023) (same); Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Feng Huang, FA 2031797 (Forum Mar. 21, 2023) (same); Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Dong Song, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark, using what the Panel infers to be at least partially fictitious registration information, and is using it for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote directly competing and likely counterfeit products. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Teton Outfitters, L.L.C. v. Theresa W Chavez, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Pruvit Ventures, Inc. v. Naibin Jiang, supra (same); Toptal, LLC v. Theresa W Chavez, supra (same); Tommy John, Inc. v. Michael Griffith, supra (same); BA&SH v. Theresa W Chavez, supra (same); Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Feng Huang, supra (same); Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Dong Song, supra (same). The Panel so finds. 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 <sferra.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: April 16, 2024 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.