The Complainant is Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., United States / Sevan Derderian, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 7, 2021. On October 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 3, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 16, 2021, inviting the Complainant to clarify the Panel Selection and Mutual Jurisdiction. On November 16, 2021, the Complainant confirmed its Panel Selection and Mutual Jurisdiction for the case.
The Center verified that 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 November 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 8, 2021.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 2021. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a successful magazine publisher. Through its Conde Nast division, it publishes a number of well-known magazines, including Allure, launched in 1991. Allure reaches an average monthly audience of over four million readers through print subscriptions, over 12 million visitors through its websites and over six million social followers on social media. The Complainant operates a website at “www.allure.com” featuring beauty products information and reviews and advertisements by luxury brand owners.
A key feature of the Allure offering is the Allure Beauty Box launched in 2004. Subscribers receive a monthly pack of makeup and skincare products chosen by the editors of Allure magazine.
The Complainant is the owner of over 200 trademark registrations comprising ALLURE, including United States trademarks number 1751874 ALLURE registered on February 9, 1993, and number 4470343 ALLURE BEAUTY BOX registered on January 21, 2014; and European Union trademark number 10821651 ALLURE registered on October 1, 2016.
The Domain Name was registered on July 5, 2005. It resolves to a web portal of links to other web pages each comprising a number of hyperlinks to a variety of websites including those of competitors of the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALLURE trademark and identical to its ALLURE BEAUTY BOX trademark (the “Marks”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsFor this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has uncontested rights in the Marks, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the ALLURE mark for over 30 years and the ALLURE BEAUTY BOX mark for more than 17 years.
Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the ALLURE mark together with the dictionary words “beauty” and “box”, and is identical to the ALLURE BEAUTY BOX mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a website with links to other webpages featuring pay-per-click links to third party websites offering products similar to those of the Complainant. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name.
The Respondent has chosen not to respond formally to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithIn light of the notoriety of the Marks, and since the Domain Name could only possibly refer to the Complainant’s well-known Allure Beauty Box offering launched in 2004, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Marks in mind when it registered the Domain Name.
The Respondent has used the Domain Name for pay-per-click links to third party websites. In the Panel’s view, the legitimate inference is that the Respondent undertook such activity with a view to commercial gain, intending to attract Internet users to the webpage to which the Domain Name resolves by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Marks, and as to the affiliation or endorsement of that webpage.
Accordingly, the Panel considers that this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name,
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: January 13, 2022