Velvetbygrahamspencer.com

The timeline behind velvetbygrahamspencer.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 Velvet, LLC v. Yun Xihui Claim Number: FA2502002140320 PARTIES Complainant is Velvet, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Michelle Emeterio of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, California, USA. Respondent is Yun Xihui ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <velvetbygrahamspencer.com>, registered with OnlineNIC, 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 14, 2025; Forum received payment on February 14, 2025. On February 17, 2025, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <velvetbygrahamspencer.com> domain name is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, Inc. 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 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 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@velvetbygrahamspencer.com. Also on February 18, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11,2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER, mark which it has used on its clothing collections since 2005 and has grown to have the brand represented in its stores are located in the upscale fashion hubs known as Abbot Kinney LA, Brentwood LA, Larchmont Village, LA, Lido Newport Beach, Stanford Shopping Center Palo Alto, Filmore Street San Francisco, Nolita New York, and St. Christopher's Place London, as well as stores in Dallas and Seattle. Moreover, Complainant adds that it has wholesale showrooms in Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, London, Double Bay (Australia), Vancouver, and Hong Kong. Complainant adds that it also owns the trademarks VELVET, and VELVET BY JENNY GRAHAM in connection with apparel goods and retail services throughout the world. Additionally, Complainant submits that it has an established Internet presence and maintains websites at <www.velvettees.com>, and <www.velvet-wholesale.com>. Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER, VELVET and VELVET BY JENNY GRAHAM marks in near entirety. Complainant submits that it is well-settled that where a domain name incorporates a complainant's mark, that domain name at is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, citing as an example the decision in Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case D2000-0163. Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that · Respondent is not sponsored or endorsed by Complainant; · Complainant has never authorized or licensed Respondent to use its VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER marks or its other marks; · Respondent is not identified by Complainant's marks nor is it known by the disputed domain name in the WhoIs for the disputed domain name; · prior panels established under the Policy have held that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain at issue when there was no evidence indicating that the respondent was known by the disputed domain; see, e.g., Accenture Global Services Limited v.Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248189542 / Gary Gasgstetter, WIPO Case D2020-2778 ("Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as 'accenture.' Previous UDRP panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name for example if the WhoIs information was not similar to the disputed domain name. There is not any evidence in the case file showing that Respondent may be commonly known as 'accenture.'"); · Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any rights or legitimate interests, as Respondent is not licensed or authorized by Complainant to use the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark or any other of Complainant's marks; and · screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, show that it resolves to a copycat website purporting to offer apparel bearing Complainant's trademarks. On the exhibited website consumers are asked for personal information such as name, address, email address, and financial information when purchasing or attempting to purchase the presented products. Such use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate use and demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and asserts that it has spent decades building its popular apparel brand and has acquired significant rights and goodwill in the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark and other marks which are recognized internationally. Complainant submits that its marks VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER and VELVET BY JENNY GRAHAM are well known and distinctive. Complainant argues that Respondent sought to exploit Complainant's success by registering the disputed domain name decades after Complainant acquired rights in the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark and other similar marks, and many years after Complainant began its e-commerce and wholesale websites under those marks. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Limited v. A Si Di Fen Teng Ren, FA 1975598 (Forum Dec. 31, 2021) ("In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy."). Again referring to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves complainant argues that when it registered the disputed domain name Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER and other marks, as is evident through Respondent's use of the Complainant's marks not only in the disputed domain name but also in the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Complainant adds that the exhibited screen capture shows that the content of Respondent's website contains copyright images owned by Complainant, which Respondent could only have gotten from Complainant's websites. In conclusion, Complainant argues that the evidence shows that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant's rights in the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER and other marks and is attempting to confuse consumers as to the source and/or ownership of the disputed domain name and associated website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant manufactures clothing which it markets under the trademark VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER, for which it owns a large international portfolio of registrations including And is the owner of the following registrations · United States registered trademark, VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER, registration number 3,300,862, registered on the Principal Register on October 2, 2007, for goods in international class 25; · PRC registered trademark VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER, registration number 1233746, registered on August 4, 2017, for goods in class 25; · Hong Kong registered trademark VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER, registration number 302612349, registered on January 6, 2014, for goods in class 25; Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains websites at <www.velvettees.com>, and <www.velvet-wholesale.com>. The disputed domain name <velvetbygrahamspencer.com> was registered on January 26, 2025, and resolves to a website that mirror's Complainant's website purporting to impersonate Complainant while purporting to offer Complainant's branded goods to the public. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks described above and extensive use of the mark in its apparel business. The disputed domain name is composed of Complainant's VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark in its entirety, albeit with the absence of the ampersand ("&"), together with the generic Top Level Domain (" gTLD") extension <.com>. The Complainant's registered trademark VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The absence of the ampersand is likely to go unnoticed by the casual Internet user or reader of an email address that incorporates the disputed domain name and therefore do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Additionally in the circumstances of this case the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name registration. There is no need for this Panel to consider the extent to which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's claimed rights the marks VELVET, GRAHAM and VELVET BY JENNY GRAHAM marks. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark in which the Complainant has rights, and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests In its Complaint, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant's registered trademark VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark is clearly recognizable as the only element within the disputed domain name. Complainant's registered service mark rights in the mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The earliest trademark registration relied upon by Complainant dates back to October 2, 2007, whereas the disputed domain name was not registered until January 26, 2025. It is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant's VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered because the mark is a very distinctive combination of elements, and the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant's mark. There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to create an association with Complainant and its VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark. The uncontested evidence in the form of the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that Respondent purporting to impersonate Complainant and supports this finding of registration in bad faith. It furthermore supports Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. The evidence also shows that Respondent's exhibited website prominently displays Complainant's VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER mark and copyright images belonging the Complainant and purports to offer Complainant's branded apparel. Furthermore, Respondent's website is in its presentation, look and feel almost identical to Complainant's website. On the balance of probabilities, the copyright images were taken from Complainant's website as alleged, and Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by creating a copy of its website. So, on the balance of probabilities this Panel accepts that Respondent is infringing Complainant's copyright in the images on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Furthermore Respondent does not identify itself on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves but instead purports to impersonate Complainant by placing the copyright legend "© Buffycitysoaps LLC Powered by sunbums.store" on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Such use of Complainant's VELVET BY GRAHAM & SPENCER trademark with the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website is on the balance of probabilities intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users, and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant, and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site, which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <velvetbygrahamspencer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. _________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: March 12, 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.