The Complainant is Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sabin Bermant & Gould, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Gatini Tinsley of Detroit, Michigan, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 1, 2018. On February 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 9, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 15, 2018. On February 16, 2018, the Center requested clarification of the Complaint. Accordingly, on February 22, 2018, the Complainant submitted an amendment to the Complaint.
The Center verified that the Complaint, amended Complaint, and amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2018.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 2018. 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
The Complainant, through its unincorporated division Condé Nast, is an international magazine publisher of such prominent magazines as The New Yorker, Vogue, Glamour, Allure, and Vanity Fair. The magazine Allure is an internationally well-known fashion magazine with an average monthly audience exceeding one million. The Complainant operates the website “” featuring fashion, wellness, beauty, and style content. The Complainant has obtained numerous trademark registrations for the mark ALLURE (the “Mark”) in many dozens of countries, including the United States of America, dating back 20 years, including United States Registration No. 1751878, registered on February 9, 1993.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 9, 2017. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s Mark because the disputed domain is composed of the Mark and the generic suffix “mags.” The Complainant asserts the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain name because the Respondent has not engaged in any bona fine business activity under the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent to duplicitously solicit complimentary supplies and beauty products from the Complainant’s third-party advertisers and business associates. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name merely appends the generic term “mags” to the Complainant’s Mark. It is well established that appending generic terms as suffixes or prefixes to recognized marks typically results in a finding of confusing similarity.See e.g. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Vanilla Limited/ Domain Finance Ltd./ Minakumari Periasany,WIPO Case No. D2004-1068. Such is the case here. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, and there is no evidence of any bona fide use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name or the Mark. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with any authorization or license to use the Mark of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain name. Comerica Bank v. Will Rote,WIPO Case No. D2016-0419 (transferring ).
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent registered and is utilizing the disputed domain name in bad faith to deceive third party businesses into believing the Respondent is associated with the Complainant and to obtain valuable goods for free from these businesses. The Complainant has attached to the Complaint copies of email communications from the Respondent utilizing the disputed domain name where the Respondent, posing as an employee of the Complainant, has solicited “complimentary” products and “samples” from businesses with a relationship with the Complainant.
Notwithstanding the above bad faith conduct, it is inconceivable that the Respondent when composing the disputed domain name could have innocently, whimsically and unknowingly seized upon the Complainant’s Mark and coupled it with the suffix “mags” to compose the disputed domain name. The unrebutted evidence before the Panel portrays a scheme by the Respondent to trick the Complainant’s business associates into providing “courtesy” and “complimentary” products by sending these businesses emails utilizing the disputed domain name and fictional signature blocks containing the Mark.
The Panel finds the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy