WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lillian Vernon Corporation v. Domain Admin
Case No. D2005-0141
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Lillian Vernon Corporation, Rye, New York, United States of America, represented by Salter & Michaelson, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Huntington Beach, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BulkR.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on February 8, 2005. On February 9, 2005, the Center transmitted by email to BulkR a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February 10, 2005, BulkR transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�”Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 23, 2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March�15,�2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2005.
The Center appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels as the sole panelist in this matter on April�8,�2005. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
Complainant Lillian Vernon Corp. is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,653,281 for the mark LILLY’S KIDS, as used since 1990, in connection with mail order services in the field of children’s toys, games, furniture and clothing.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September�6,�2001.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent has no legitimate rights in the domain name. It contends that Respondent has not been known as “”.
Complainant argues that there is no question but that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith in that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s web site and other on-line locations by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the mark LILLY’S KIDS. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. The addition of the top-level domain “.com” is of no significance in this case, given the generic or descriptive nature of the term. The fact that the mark contains an apostrophe between the letters “Y” and “S” while the domain name does not also is of no moment as to the issue of whether the mark and domain name may be considered identical.
Given its use of and registration covering the mark LILLY’S KIDS, Complainant clearly has rights in the mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further concludes, based on the evidence presented, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The record provides no basis to conclude that any of the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are applicable.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel determines that the domain name was registered and is being used in “bad faith.” The Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its site by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of such site. The Panel notes that the “www.” web site provides users with the ability to obtain information regarding a host of commercial activities, including travel, insurance, banking, leisure, and gambling.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2005
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy