About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Saks & Company v. saksfifthavenue-sale.com

Case No. D2013-1644

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Saks & Company of New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Loeb & Loeb, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is saksfifthavenue-sale.com of Warsaw, Poland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <saksfifthavenue-sale.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 18, 2013. On September 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 19, 2013, 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 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 15, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2013.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 2013. 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 is the operator of department stores named “Saks Fifth Avenue” which are located in New York City, elsewhere in the United States and in other countries.

The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark SAKS FIFTH AVENUE dating back to 1956. The registrations include:

- United States trademark number 3368500, registered on January 15, 2008 in international class 35, for retail department store services, online retail department store services, and mail order services featuring general department store merchandise.

- United States trademark number 1180633, registered on December 1, 1981 in international class 42, for retail department store services. This trademark comprises the words SAKS FIFTH AVENUE in a stylized script (the “Stylized Mark”).

The Domain Name was registered on April 9, 2013.

At the date of the Center’s formal compliance review, September 25, 2013, the Domain Name resolved to a web page at “www.saksfifthavenue-sale.com”. The page prominently displayed the Stylized Mark and offered a range of fashion accessories for sale online at discounted prices.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant relies on its trademark registrations referred to above.

The Complainant states that it is one of the world’s premier retail chain companies and has sold luxury goods for almost 100 years. It opened its first store in New York City in the early 1900s and is now established throughout the United States and in other countries. Among other retail activities it offers discounted designer clothing and accessories under related names that include the SAKS FIFTH AVENUE mark, such as “Saks Fifth Avenue Off 5th”. It has invested heavily in the SAKS FIFTH AVENUE marks over the years, devoting many millions of dollars to advertising and promoting its services through media within the United States and in other countries. Its revenues for the last fiscal year were in excess of USD 3 billion. It contends that as a result of these matters its SAKS FIFTH AVENUE marks are famous both within the United States and in other countries.

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name completely subsumes its SAKS FIFTH AVENUE mark adding only the generic modifier “sale”, which does nothing to create a distinctive mark or prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has it made any demonstrable preparations to do so: furthermore, the Respondent would be incapable of using the Domain Name for any offering of goods or services that did not take advantage of deliberate confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant states that there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name or any variation thereof. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent is using the Domain Name solely to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s website for profit.

The Complainant submits that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Complainant submits that the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s famous trademark when it registered the Domain Name and did so in a brazen attempt to lure the Complainant’s customers.

The Complainant points to the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to resolve to the website described above. The Complainant contends that, in addition to reproducing the Stylized Mark, the website is also designed to resemble the layout of the Complainant’s official website, details of which are provided. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name represents an obvious attempt to divert the Complainant’s customers to a competitor and amounts to disruption of the Complainant’s business as contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.

The Complainant requests a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Even in a case where the Respondent has failed to file a Response, the Complainant must still establish that all three of the above elements are present.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registrations for the trademark SAKS FIFTH AVENUE for retail services including online sales. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark but for the addition of the suffix “-sale” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the suffix “-sale” does nothing to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark. In the view of the Panel the suffix merely adds to the potential for confusion as it is descriptive of one of the principal activities for which the Complainant’s trademark is registered. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has asserted that, for the reasons set out in its Complaint, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case to this effect. The Respondent has failed to answer the Complainant’s contentions and the Panel can see no evidence on the material before it of any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the Respondent’s part. In the circumstances, 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

The Panel accepts the evidence of the Complainant that, as a result of its history and commercial activities, its mark SAKS FIFTH AVENUE is famous or well-known in the field of retail sales. The Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the Domain Name or that it registered the Domain Name for any reason other than to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill associated with that trademark.

The Panel also accepts the evidence of the Complainant that the Respondent’s website to which the Domain Name resolves makes prominent use of the Stylized Mark and is otherwise designed to resemble the Complainant’s own website. The Panel has no doubt that the Respondent’s intention in registering the Domain Name and linking it to this website was to impersonate the Complainant and to trade off its goodwill by misleadingly diverting Internet users to its website. While the Complainant relies on paragraph 3(b)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel is not of the view that the Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business. However the Panel infers that by using the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 Domain Name <saksfifthavenue-sale.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: November 1, 2013

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/