Houseoftaylor.store

The timeline behind houseoftaylor.store

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 The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited, and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company v. Deborah Carruthers Claim Number: FA2502002139264 PARTIES Complainant is The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited, and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company ("Complainant"), represented by Stephen J. Strauss of BUCHALTER, California, USA. Respondent is Deborah Carruthers ("Respondent"), Australia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <houseoftaylor.store>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dr. Katalin Szamosi as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 7, 2025; Forum received payment on February 7, 2025. On February 10, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <houseoftaylor.store> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 February 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@houseoftaylor.store. Also on February 12, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 March 4, 2025. On March 5, 2025 Additional Submission was received from the Complainants. On March 5, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dr. Katalin Szamosi 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS There are three Complainants in this matter: The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company. UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) govern situations involving multiple complainants. UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Jerry Guess, FA 2002904 (Forum Aug. 23, 2022) ("While it appears that a single Complainant filed this proceeding, there are two Complainants in this matter: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. Complainant argues that they have a sufficient nexus to both claim rights in the Trademark GUESS because Guess? IP Holder L.P. is effectively owned by Guess?, Inc. The Panel will accept Complainant's assertion and will treat both Complainants as a single entity."); BFD, Inc. and Barefoot Dreams, Inc. v. kanggeng sheng, FA 1997581 (Forum July 6, 2022) ("There are two Complainants in this matter: BFD, Inc. and Barefoot Dreams, Inc. BFD, Inc. is the owner of the primary mark BFD that is the subject of this complaint, and has exclusively licensed Barefoot Dreams, Inc. to make and sell products under the BFD mark, which it does…. The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding."); ITT Inc. and ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, LLC v. Thomas Romero, FA 1961339 (Forum Sept. 29, 2021) ("It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity."). Each of the Complainants owns various rights of the late Elizabeth Taylor's name. The Panel based on the evidence in the annexes (Registration with the USPTO and Successor-In-Interest claim) accepts that the evidence in the Complaint establish a sufficient nexus between the Complainants. The Panel will treat Complainants as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Complainants will heretofore be collectively referred to as "Complainant". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Complainant argues that under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent's <houseoftaylor.store> domain name (hereinafter referred to as "Domain Name") is identical to Complainant's ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks. In support of this Complainant asserts that · Elizabeth Taylor was one of the most recognized and famous personalities in the world.; · in 1978 Elizabeth Taylor assigned rights in her name, likeness and appearance to Interplanet Productions Limited (one of the Complainants); · in the 1980s Elizabeth Taylor and Interplanet licensed the ELIZABETH TAYLOR name and mark in connection with cosmetics, perfumes and skin care products to the Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company (another Complainant); · upon the death of Elizabeth Taylor on March 23, 2011, The Elizabeth Taylor Trust succeeded to all of Elizabeth Taylor's post mortem publicity rights not previously assigned to Interplanet (also a Complainant); · has rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks based upon registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and foreign trademark and service registrations; · Respondent registered the Domain Name in August 27, 2024 long after Elizabeth Taylor reached celebrity status or Complainant registered the marks; · the Respondent never used the Domain Name in connection with bone fide offering of any goods or services. 2. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In support of this Complainant asserts that · its use of and registrations for the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks is evidence that Complainant owns exclusive rights in the marks; · its use of the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks precedes Respondent's registration of the Domain Name; · the Domain Name incorporates, in its entirety Complainant's HOUSE OF TAYLOR mark and the "TAYLOR" portion of their ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark; · the Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant; · Respondent's addition of the generic top-level domain ".store" in the Domain Name does not negate the confusingly similar aspects · Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to register and use the Domain Name; · no evidence to show that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name; · Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks; · Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name; · the Domain Name links to an inactive webpage stating: "A New WordPress Site Coming Soon!" 3. Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In support of this, Complainant contends that · Respondent's passive holding of the contested domain constitutes evidence of bad faith; · no conceivable active use that could be made of the Domain Name that would not amount to an infringement of Complainant's rights in their ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks; · Respondent's unauthorized Domain Name usurps Complainants' rights in their ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks, and blocks their ability to control use of the marks as domains; · Respondent registered the Domain Name despite knowledge of Complainants' collective common law and registered rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks. B. Respondent Respondent contends the following · the Domain Name contains the word "Taylor", which is a common surname and not exclusive to the Complainant; · the Domain Name does not explicitly reference "Elizabeth Taylor" or any branding associated with the Complainant's trademarks; · use of "Taylor" is not an attempt to exploit, mislead, or confuse consumers into believing there is an association with the Complainant's business; · registered the Domain Name in honor of her late mother and grandmother, whose surname was Taylor; · her business plan is independent and involves selling her own photographic images on products (bags, clothing, household items), printed images, and digital downloads; · she has taken multiple legitimate business steps toward this goal; · she is actively learning WordPress development to build an e-commerce platform; · owns <wrightclick.store>, which is directly related to her photography business and demonstrates genuine intent to develop an online store and that she was not attempting to exploit any third party's trademarks; · did not register the Domain Name to sell it to the Complainant, disrupt their business, or capitalize on their reputation. · the website is currently marked as "coming soon" because she is still developing the business and learning the technical aspects of website management; · have never reached out to the Complainant offering to sell the domain; · there is no evidence that she registered or used the Domain Name to target the Complainant's brand; · the fact that she registered <wrightclick.store> shows that she always intended to develop her own brand and had no bad faith motivations when registering the Domain Name. C. Additional Submission of the Complainant Complainant contends that the Respondent does not dispute or deny that (i) Complainant owns the rights to the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR, (ii) the Domain Name is identical to Complainant's ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks and registrations, (iii) Respondent has no relationship between herself and Complainant, (iv) she was never authorized by Complainant to register and use the Domain Name, (v) Complainants' assertion that she has not been commonly known by the Domain Name, (vi) Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks at the time she registered the Domain Name and (vii) Respondent is not presently using the Domain Name. Regarding the Respondent's contention that she registered the Domain Name in honor of her late mother and grandmother, both of whom had the maiden name "Taylor", Complainant argues that the argument fails to support her rights and legitimate interests in Domain Name. Regarding the Respondent's contention that she has undertaken "multiple legitimate business steps" demonstrating "genuine intent to develop an online store" using the Domain Name, Complainant argues that · Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) requires a Respondent to present evidence establishing a "demonstrable preparation to use" to use the Domain Name and that such preparations were undertaken before any notice to Respondent of the dispute; · Respondent submits various screenshots of various webpages however, none of these screenshot webpages are dated, nor do they provide any web addresses; · undated evidence is woefully insufficient to support a claim of "demonstrable preparation to use" undertaken before Respondent received notice of the Amended Complaint FINDINGS For the reasons set out below the Panel finds for Complainant and orders a transfer of the <houseoftaylor.store> 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 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant's rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks under Policy 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks. Generally, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) adding ".com" gTLD is can be disregarded when analyzing the confusing similarity. Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Jerry Guess, FA 2002904 (Forum Aug. 23, 2022) ("UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the ".com" gTLD in a disputed domain name may be disregarded in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights."). Also See Google LLC v. Steven Ng, FA 1998215 (Forum Aug. 29, 2022) ("The addition of the ".com" gTLD is irrelevant in this analysis of confusing similarity."). The Domain Name incorporates, in its entirety Complainant's HOUSE OF TAYLOR mark and the "TAYLOR" portion of their ELIZABETH TAYLOR mark while appending the generic term ".store" gTLD. The Panel is on the opinion that ".store" gTLD falls under the same category as ".com" gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain is identical with the HOUSE OF TAYLOR mark and confusingly similar to Complainant's "TAYLOR" mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name to then enable the burden to, in effect, shift to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. Complainant asserts Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks in the Domain Name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a Complainant's mark may indicate that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. See PragmaticPlay Limited v. Robert Chris, FA2102001932464 (Forum Mar. 23, 2021) ("The WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as "Robert Chris," and no other information of record suggests Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). Here, the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Deborah Carruthers". Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that Respondent assertion that her late mother's and grandmother's maiden surname was "Taylor" cannot substantiate that the Respondent herself is commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services since it only contains an inactive webpage stating: "A New WordPress Site Coming Soon!". See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) ("The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant argues that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name before Respondent received notice of the Amended Complaint. The Panel notes that Complainant's attached screenshot to which the Domain Name resolves, inactive webpage stating: "A New WordPress Site Coming Soon!". The Respondent attached numerous annexes containing screenshots to demonstrate preparations to use the Domain Name. The Panel first notes that none of the annexes contain dates or any web addresses (URL) indicating their origin. Respondent claims that Annex 3 contains "A copy of my Intro wording on my website as proof where I am describing my business and intentions for printing my own photographic artwork onto clothing and more.". However, there is no web address (URL) or date in this screenshot, nor did Respondent refute the accuracy of Annex 5 of the Complainant showing the "A New WordPress Site Coming Soon!" message. In fact, the Respondent stated that she is still developing the business and learning the technical aspects of my websites management hence the "coming soon page" is displayed. The Panel finds that the statements of the Respondent are contradictory. In fact, Annex 3 of the Respondent contains on the right top corner a text stating "Howdy wrightclickphotography" and on the left top corner a "W" logo, next to it is "House of Taylor", "Live" and "Edit Site". The Panel is on the view that this is most likely the Word Press login account of the Respondent's active website hosted under <wrightclick.store> domain name. Annex 9 of the Respondent contains on the right top corner a text stating "Howdy wrightclickphotography" and on the left top corner "House of Taylor". As none of the annexes contain dates or any web addresses (URL) indicating their origin, on the balance of probabilities, the Panel is not convinced that the evidence is relating to the development of a website relating to the Domain Name, rather a website relating to the Respondent's other domain name <wrightclick.store>. This is also supported by the screenshots of a Gmail inbox in which contain numerous e-mails from a sender called "WordPress" and the subject is "[House of Taylor] (…) wrightclick.store (…)". Based on the foregoing the Panel finds that Respondent's submitted evidence fails to support her claim that she has demonstrated preparations to use the Domain Name. See Southpaw Enterprises, Inc. v. HB, FA 1564451 (Forum Aug. 3, 2014) ("[T]he issue is not simply the legitimacy of Respondent's business plan, but whether it has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name itself. Put another way, the question is not (as it is framed by Respondent) whether or not Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide business, but whether or not, for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services."). See Research Now Group, Inc. v. Vernon Pursley, FA 1658566 (Forum Mar. 16, 2016) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's evidence fails to provide sufficient proof of demonstrable preparations to use the domain name. Respondent has provided no evidence in support of what it means by establishing a website "related to Natural Organic and Wholesome". Web hosting and name servers are required by anyone setting up a website and have no bearing on the legitimacy or propriety of the rights in the domain name being used. The Panel finds that Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name which constitutes evidence of bad faith. The Complainants ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks are undoubtedly famous therefore the Panel finds that passive holding of the Domain Name is evidence of bad faith. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Mike Gau, FA 1878581 (Forum Jan. 16, 2020) ("The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use."). Finally, the Panel accepts that Respondent had the necessary knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks when registering the Domain Name. Previous panels have found that actual knowledge is sufficient to show bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."). The Panel here is satisfied that the necessary knowledge is established due to Complainants having multiple and long-standing trademark registrations of the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks given the international fame they have achieved, coupled with the fact that Respondent did not dispute Complainant assertion the she had constructive knowledge of the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks at the time she registered the Domain Name. The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <houseoftaylor.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dr. Katalin Szamosi, Panelist Dated: March 18, 2025 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.