Rightsy — Protect your rights: IP search and flat-fee legal services

Search trademarks

ER Marks, Inc.; QVC, Inc. v. domains Asia Ventures

WIPO Case No. D2003-0523

Outcome
Transfer
Domain names
wwqvc.com
Complainant
ER Marks, Inc.; QVC, Inc. (United States of America;)
Complainant's counsel
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP
Respondent
domains Asia Ventures (China)
Panelist
Yang
Registrar
iHoldings.com Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com
Decided
08 Sept 2003
Response
The respondent did not reply
Language
English

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Official copy: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0523.html

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL

DECISION

QVC, Inc. and ER Marks, Inc. v. domains Asia Ventures

Case No. D2003-0523

1. The Parties

The Complainants are QVC, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, United States of America and ER Marks, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America; represented by Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is domains Asia Ventures, Fujian, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wwqvc.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with iHoldings.com Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 2, 2003. On July 2, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to iHoldings.com Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On July 4, 2003, iHoldings.com Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com 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 July 8, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 28, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 30, 2003.

The Center appointed Mark Min-Jen Yang as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 2003. 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the parties (taking note of the Respondent’s default in responding to the Complaint).

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent". Therefore, the Panel shall issue its decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of the Respondent’s response.

4. Factual Background

The Respondent or its predecessor-in-title, registered the Domain Name <wwqvc.com> in 2002.

For convenience of expression, the Complainants are referred to herein in the singular as Complainant. As required or appropriate in context herein, the Complainant refers to QVC, Inc. or ER Marks, Inc. or both.

In the Complaint (paragraphs under Section V, at pages 4-9), and the associated Annexes, the Complainant submitted evidence and contentions of various factual and legal conclusions based on such evidence.

Since the Respondent has not submitted any evidence and has not contested the contentions made by the Complainant, the Panel is left to render its decision on the basis of the uncontroverted contentions made, and the evidence supplied, by the Complainant. The Panel’s position on some contentions is amplified below (in Discussion and Findings).

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary submitted by the Respondent, this Panel accepts much (but not necessarily all) the submitted evidence and the contended for factual and legal conclusions as proven by such evidence, as set out in the Complaint. The Panel does accept enough of the Complainant’s evidence and contentions, to render its decision below.

For almost two decades, the Complainant has used the "QVC" trademark in connection with its retail services for in-home shopping and its related goods and services (herein, "QVC Services"). The Complainant owns about twenty US trademark registrations or applications for trademarks that include the component "QVC" (listed in the Complaint, pages 5-7, hereinafter "QVC Trademarks"), in association with QVC Services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name, <wwqvc.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to the QVC Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name is registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant requests the transfer to the Complainant QVC, Inc. of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

One requirement of fundamental due process is that a Respondent has notice of proceedings that may substantially affect its rights. The Policy, Rules and Supplemental Rules establish procedures intended to assure that a Respondent is given adequate notice of proceedings commenced against it, and a reasonable opportunity to respond (see, e.g., Rules, paragraph 2(a)).

In this case, the Panel is satisfied that the Center took all steps reasonably necessary to notify the Respondent of the filing of the Complaint and initiation of these proceedings, and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a response to the Complaint is not due to any omission by the Center. There is sufficient evidence, in the case file provided by the Center, for the Panel to conclude the Center discharged its obligations under Rules, paragraph 2(a) (see Procedural History, supra).

Where there is default, under Rule 14(a), "the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint", and under the Rule 14(b), "the Panel shall draw such inferences [from the default] as it considers appropriate". Furthermore, Rule 15(a) provides that a "Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems appropriate". Since the Respondent has not submitted any material and has not contested the contentions made by the Complainant, the Panel is left to render its decision on the basis of the uncontroverted contentions made, and the evidence supplied, by the Complainant.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three elements to be established by a Complainant to merit a finding that a Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration, and to obtain relief. Each of the following three elements must be established by a Complainant:

(a) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(c) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Complainant and the facts and conclusions contended for (see Factual Background, above), the Panel finds that:

(a) the Complainant has generated many millions of dollars of revenue for sales of the QVC Services in association with the QVC Trademarks.

(b) the Complainant operates its websites "www.qvc.com" and "www.iqvc.com"; and

(c) the QVC Trademarks, in association with the QVC Services, are the subject of trademark registrations and applications and common law rights in the United States of America.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has significant rights in its QVC Trademarks in the United States of America, in association with the QVC Services.

The Panel finds that the difference between the QVC Trademarks and the Domain Name, is of insufficient legal significance to distinguish the Domain Name from the QVC Trademarks. The mis-typing of "www.qvc.com" (the Complainant’s website) as the Domain Name <wwqvc.com>, is a transparent attempt to confuse.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the QVC Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has submitted no evidence, generally, and none under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in particular, to support a finding of it having any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. This is sufficient for the Panel to accept the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest.

Furthermore, based on the uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Complainant and the factual and legal conclusions contended for (see Factual Background, above), the Panel accepts in large measure, the evidence and contentions of factual and legal conclusions set out in the Complaint. In particular, the Panel finds that (a), (b) and (c) under 6.A. above, were likely known by the Respondent when it registered the Domain Name and that makes it very difficult, even if it had submitted evidence, for it to show it had rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on

the uncontroverted

evidence

submitted

by the Complainant

and the

factual

and legal

conclusions

contended

for (see

Factual

Background,

above),

the Panel

accepts

in large

measure,

the evidence

and contentions

set out

in the Complaint.

In particular,

the Domain

Name was

registered

in bad faith

because

it was done

with knowledge

of the Complainant’s

trademark

registrations

and its

use of QVC

Trademarks

in association

with its

QVC Services.

Also in

particular,

the Domain

Name is

being used

in bad faith

because

(according

to the Complaint)

the use

is to divert

Internet

use traffic

to its own

website

in competition

with the

Complainant

and its

website.

The Panel

finds that

the Domain

Name has

been registered

and is being

used in

bad faith

by the Respondent.

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 <wwqvc.com>

be transferred

to the Complainant

QVC, Inc.

Mark

Min-Jen

Yang

Sole Panelist

Date:

August

20, 2003

More cases by this complainant

Open this decision on Rightsy