Pier 1 Imports, Inc.; Pier 1 Licensing, Inc. v. Success Work

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Pier 1 Imports,

Inc. and Pier 1 Licensing, Inc. v. Success Work

Case No.

D2001-0419

1. The Parties

The Complainants are: Pier

1 Imports, Inc. and Pier 1 Licensing, Inc., two companies incorporated in the

State of Delaware, U.S.A. with principal offices at 301 Commerce Street, Suite

600, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, U.S.A.

The Complainants are represented

by Anita Nesser, Esq., Baker Botts LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75201,

U.S.A.

The Respondent is Success

Work, an entity whose address is Box 425, Miami, Florida 33283, U.S.A.

2. The Domain Name and

Registrar

The domain name in dispute

is <peir1.com>.

The registrar for the disputed

domain name is Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), whose address is 505 Huntmar Park

Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20170, U.S.A.

3. Procedural History

This dispute is to be decided

under the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (the Policy) and

Rules (the Rules) approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and

Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, and the World Intellectual Property Organization

Arbitration and Mediation Center's Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name

Dispute Resolution (the Center, the Supplemental Rules).

The Complaint was filed

on March 23, 2001. On March 28, 2001, the Center requested that the Registrar

NSI check and report back on the identity of the registrant for the domain name

<peir1.com>. On March 30, 2001, NSI reported to the Center that the registrant

was the Respondent in this proceeding, "SuccessWork-This Domain Is For Sale".

On April 2, 2001, the Center

forwarded a copy of the Complaint to Respondent by registered mail and by e-mail

and this Proceeding officially began. Respondent's Response was received by

the Center on April 14, 2001.

The Administrative Panel

submitted a Declaration of Impartiality and Independence on May 1, 2001, and

the Center proceeded to appoint the Panel on May 2, 2001. The Panel finds the

Center has adhered to the Policy and the Rules in administering this Case.

This Decision is due by

May 16, 2001.

4. Factual Background

One of the Complainants,

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. is an importer and retailer of home furnishings, gifts

and related goods. It has hundreds of stores throughout the United States of

America and in a number of foreign countries. This Complainant also is quoted

on the NASDAQ. The other Complainant, Pier 1 Licensing, Inc., owns all the registered

Pier 1 marks and is a subsidiary of Pier 1 Imports, Inc.

The Respondent describes

itself as in the web-hosting business. The Respondent registered the disputed

domain name, <peir1.com>, on January 31, 2000. The Respondent claims to

have transferred the disputed domain name to another company, Peir 1 Networking

& Associates, in February, 2000, but the registrar's records do not show

this.

The record does not show

that the parties ever communicated with each other prior to this proceeding.

Instead, the Complainants have moved directly to this proceeding and are seeking

transfer of the disputed domain name, <peir1.com>.

5. The Parties' Contentions

Complainants' Contentions:

- The disputed domain

name is virtually identical to the trademark registered and used by Complainants

except for a misspelling.

- Respondent is not

making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

- Respondent is not

a licensee of Complainants, and has not received permission or consent to use

the trademark Pier 1 or to apply for the disputed domain name.

- The domain name has

been registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent registered

the domain name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainants or a competitor

of the Complainants for far more than the Respondent paid for it.

- The Respondent registered

the domain name to prevent the Complainants from doing so and has engaged in

a pattern of such conduct in violation of the Policy at para 4(b)(ii).

- The Respondent registered

the domain name in order to disrupt the Complainants' business.

- The Respondent is

in bad faith because it registered the domain name intending to attract for

commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

Complainants' mark in violation of the Policy at 4(b)(iv).

- The disputed domain

name should be transferred to the Complainants.

Respondent's Contentions:

- Respondent registered

the domain name for its web hosting business.

- Respondent traded

the domain name to Peir 1 Networking & Associates in February 2000 in exchange

for networking services. Peir 1 Networking & Associates has been engaged

in selling hubs, routers, bridges and switches since late 1999.

- Peir 1 Networking

& Associates has acquired common law trademark rights through use.

- Respondent registered

and is using the domain name in good faith.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order for Complainant

to prevail and have the disputed domain name <peir1.com> transferred to

it, Complainant must prove the following (the Policy, para 4(a)(i-iii):

- the domain name is

identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

- the Respondent has

no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

- the domain name was

registered and is being used in bad faith

Identical or Confusingly

Similar

The Complainants have provided

numerous examples of registrations of their Pier1 mark as used in their imported

home furnishings business. The mark is used for the stores offering the sales

as well as on the goods themselves, ie, it is used as both a service mark and

a trademark. Exemplary copies from the principal register of the United States

of America Patent and Trademark Office include: no. 948,076 registered on November

28, 1972 and renewed in 1992 in int. class 42 for retail gift store services;

and no. 1,620, 518 dated October 30, 1990 also in int. class 42 for store services

in home furnishings (Complaint Annex 3).

The Respondent registered

the disputed domain name <peir1.com>. Orthographically, the Respondent

has varied the Complainants' mark by reversing the middle vowels. Phonetically,

the domain name is virtually identical in pronunciation to the Complainant's

mark. Both the mark and the domain name have the number "1" at the end. The

Panel finds the disputed domain name, <peir1.com> immediately recalls

the Complainants' mark Pier1, and that it is confusingly similar to the mark.

Accordingly, the Complainants have satisfied 4(a)(i) of the Policy:

Legitimate Rights or Interests

The Complainants contend

they have not licensed the Respondent to use their mark and that the Respondent

is not making a bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Respondent claims it registered

the domain name for use "in our web hosting business" but offers no evidence

of what this business was or is. Respondent claims to have transferred the disputed

domain name to Peir 1 Networking Associates in February, 2000 but this is not

reflected in the registration of the domain name. This latter company's name

does currently appear at the disputed domain name web page as a seller of Internet-related

equipment but the relationship between the Respondent and Peir 1 Networking

Associates, if one exists, has not been clarified for the Panel. The domain

name remains registered to Respondent under the name: "SuccessWork-This Domain

Is For Sale".

The Panel does not see

any legitimate rights or interests in the domain name on the part of the Respondent.

Registered and Used in

Bad Faith

The Complainants have advanced

a number of grounds on which they allege the Respondent registered and is using

the domain name in bad faith under the Policy.

The Complainants contend

the Respondent registered the domain name in order to disrupt the Complainants'

business (the Policy 4b(iii)), but the Complainants have offered no proof in

this regard.

The Complainants also contend

the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to deprive the Complainants

of the name and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct

(the Policy 4b(ii)). It seems unlikely to the Panel that the Complainants would

themselves have registered a deliberate misspelling of their mark, which is

what the disputed domain name, <peir1.com> amounts to. And in any case,

the Complainants did not show the Respondent engaged in a pattern of such registrations

as required by the Policy. Instead, the Complainants merely listed a number

of domain name registrations without offering any proof they were registered

by the Respondent (Complaint p. 6).

The Panel does however

find the Complainants have proved the Respondent registered and was using the

disputed domain name in bad faith on two grounds. First, the very choice of

Respondent’s registrant name, ie, "SuccessWork-This Domain Name Is For Sale"

is eloquent of the Respondent's intentions in violation of the Policy at 4(b)(i):

to sell the domain name to the Complainants or a competitor for far more than

the Respondent paid for it (see Chanel, Inc. v. Mike Torres d/b/a National

Promotions, Inc., ICANN/WIPO Case No.

D2000-1833, February 22, 2001, involving respondent/registrant "This Domain

Name Is for Sale").

Second, the Panel finds

the Complainants have shown the Respondent registered and was using the domain

name in bad faith in violation of the Policy at 4(b)(iv): the Respondent is

using the domain name to attract traffic for commercial gain by creating a confusing

similarity with the Complainants' mark. The Respondent currently is offering

a variety of Internet-related equipment and services at the disputed domain

name website, and is counting on the notoriety of the Complainants' mark in

the deliberately misspelled domain name to drive Internet clients to Respondent's

website.

The Panel concludes the

Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

7. Decision

The Respondent registered

a domain name deliberately misspelled so as to be confusingly similar to the

Complainants' mark. In addition, the Respondent had no legitimate rights or

interests in the domain name and registered and was using it in bad faith. Therefore,

based on ICANN Policy para 4(i) and Rule 15, the Panel orders that the disputed

domain name, <peir1.com> be transferred from the Respondent, SuccessWork,

to the Complainants, Pier 1 Imports, Inc. and Pier 1 Licensing, Inc.

Dennis A.

Foster

Sole Panelist

Date: May

16, 2001

More cases by this complainant

• Pier 1 Imports, Inc.; Pier 1 Licensing, Inc. v. Raymond E. Farr, Jr. — D2001-0357 · pier2imports.com · Transfer · 12 Jul 2001