WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. v. B
Case No. D2007-1095
1. The Parties
Complainant is Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., of San Diego, California, United States of America, represented by Cooley, Godward, Kronish, LLP, of Palo Alto, California.
Respondent is B, of Chula Vista, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2007. On July 27, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to eNom, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On July 27, 2007, eNom, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 1, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 21, 2007. Other than an email communication sent to Complainant on August 16, 2007, offering the transfer of the domain name at issue, Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of Respondent’s default on August 23, 2007.
The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie de Larena as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2007. 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 has been in the retail sales business since 1975, commonly doing business under the name and mark CHARLOTTE RUSSE. In particular, Complainant sells clothing, footwear, and clothing accessories targeted toward teen girls and young women. Complainant is a widely-known retailer, with approximately 392 stores in the United States of America. All of Complainant’s stores are known to the public by the name Charlotte Russe. Complainant’s wares under this mark have also been featured in several major, national or international magazines targeted at the same demographic as Complainant’s retail line.
Complainant has registered, and is the owner of, several marks that display and include the words CHARLOTTE RUSSE. These marks have been on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Complainant’s country of origin, since at least 1988. Complainant is also the current registrant of various domain names. Its main website is located at the URL associated with the domain name . Complainant uses its domain names in connection with its business on the Internet, including direct Internet sales as well as store locator services for potential customers.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and does not have a license to use Complainant’s marks. The registrar’s records indicate that Respondent registered on August 3, 2001. As of the date the Complaint was filed, Respondent was using to resolve to a website offering services and links to resales of Complainant’s merchandise and to merchandise from Complainant’s competitors.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(a) Identical or Confusingly Similar – The domain name is almost identical, and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, CHARLOTTE RUSSE, omitting only the final letter “e” of the mark.
(b) Rights or Legitimate Interests – Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest with respect to the domain name . Complainant owns a trademark registration for the mark CHARLOTTE RUSSE, which it uses in commerce, including for online business. Complainant’s registration of the mark predates Respondent’s registration of the domain name at issue by at least 13 years. Complainant contends that Respondent does not own any trademark or other intellectual property rights in the mark CHARLOTTE RUSSE, and that Respondent has never used “Charlotte Russe” as a legal or business name. Complainant further avers that it has never authorized, licensed or permitted Respondent to use its CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark.
(c) Registered and Used in Bad Faith – Respondent’s domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith based on the following factors: (i) disrupting the business of a competitor by diverting traffic through confusion; (ii) diverting traffic through confusion for monetary gain by offering links to other competing retailers and resales of Complainant’s merchandise; (iii) knowledge of the Complainant’s long and continuous use of the CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark at the time of registration and knowledge that Respondent had no right, title or interest, whatsoever, in the mark or domain name; and (iv) engaging in a pattern of registering infringing domain names.
B. Respondent
Other than the email communication of August 16, 2007, mentioned above, Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is a well-known retailer, selling clothing, footwear, and clothing accessories through approximately 392 stores in the United States of America. All of Complainant’s stores are known to the public by the name CHARLOTTE RUSSE, a mark which Complainant registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as early as 1988, with continual use since 1975. Complainant is also the current registrant of various domain names, including its main website located via the URL associated with the domain name Complainant uses its domain names in connection with its business on the Internet, including direct Internet sales as well as store locator services for potential customers.
The domain name is virtually identical, and is confusingly similar, to Complainant’s mark, CHARLOTTE RUSSE, omitting only the final letter “e” of the mark. This indicates a practice commonly known as “typosquatting,” where a domain name registrant deliberately registers common misspellings of a well-known mark in order to divert consumer traffic. UDRP Panels have routinely found typosquatted domain names like the one in this case to be “confusingly similar” to a complainant’s mark for purposes of a finding under the UDRP. See E, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, WIPO Case No. D2006-0694 (, ); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol, WIPO Case No. D2001-0489 (, , , , , ).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the first requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts Complainant’s contention regarding Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name . Complainant owns a trademark registration for the mark CHARLOTTE RUSSE, which it uses in commerce, including for online business and sales of its merchandise. Complainant’s registration of the CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark predates Respondent’s registration of the confusingly similar domain name by at least 13 years.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not own any trademark or other intellectual property rights in the mark CHARLOTTE RUSSE, and that Respondent has never used “Charlotte Russe” as a legal or business name. Complainant further avers that it has never authorized, licensed or permitted Respondent to use its CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark. Respondent has submitted no Response or materials in rebuttal.
Finally, the Panel observes that on August 16, after being notified of the commencement of the administrative proceeding, Respondent sent Complainant an email offering to transfer the domain name . The Panel has the authority to consider and weigh supplemental materials as it deems fit, according to paragraph 10 of the Rules. The Panel construes Respondent’s offer as indicative of Respondent’s knowledge of its lack of rights and legitimate interest in the domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the second requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Three primary factors lead the Panel to infer and conclude that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
First, Complainant registered the CHARLOTTE RUSSE mark as early as 1988 13 years prior to Respondent’s registration of the domain name . Complainant is well-known in the United States of America – home to both Complainant and Respondent – for its retail clothing and related merchandise for teens and young women.
Second, the Panel finds that the Respondent has chosen to register Complainant’s mark as a domain name in order to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant’s website for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business for monetary gain. Respondent’s website actually directs users to a range of merchandise options, including resales of Complainant’s wares as well as merchandise from Complainant’s competitors. This conduct of diverting traffic for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor for monetary gain is clearly considered bad faith under the Policy. See, A, Inc. v. MCL International Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-1678 () and American Institute of Floral Designers v. Palm Coast Floral, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0335 ().
Third, engaging in a pattern of registering infringing domain names can be indicative of “bad faith” under UDRP paragraph 4(b)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of such pattern by Respondent. In particular, Respondent has been ordered to transfer domain names by a number of other UDRP Panels via the National Arbitration Forum. See, DaimlerChrysler AG v. B, NAF FA0507000519308 ( and ); Freightliner LLC v. B, NAF FA0508000528542 ().
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 Complainant.
Lorelei Ritchie De Larena
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 18, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy