À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

B. Lane, Inc. d/b/a Fashion To Figure v. Viktor

Case No. D2013-0631

1. The Parties

The Complainant is B. Lane, Inc. d/b/a Fashion To Figure of New York City, New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Viktor of Buffalo, New York, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <fashiontofigure.org> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on April 5, 2013. On April 5, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 6, 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 April 11, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 1, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2013.

The Center appointed William F “Bill” Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on May 10, 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 sells women’s clothing. The Complainant registered the mark FASHION TO FIGURE (the “Mark”) in 2007 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Complainant has used the Mark since at least 2003. The Complainant owns the domain name <fashiontofigure.com>. In 2012, the Complainant generated revenues approximating USD 15 million. On March 8, 2013, industry press reported a significant investment in the Complaint by a private equity firm.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 9, 2013.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to its Mark, that the Respondent has no bona fide or legitimate interest in the Mark or the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to lure unsuspecting visitors to its website to increase its visitor count thereby enhancing the sale value of the disputed domain name. Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains metadata designed to “optimize” the likelihood that Internet searches seeking the Complainant will return the disputed domain name.

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 is identical to the Complainant’s Mark with the exception that the words of the Mark are collapsed. This difference and the addition of “.org” to the Mark are immaterial in this case. See Merck KGaA v. Douglas Draper, WIPO Case No. D2003-0203 (<merck.org> is confusingly similar to MERCK mark).

The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant disavows any commercial relationship with the Respondent whereby the Respondent was licensed in or in any manner authorized to use the Complainant’s Mark or to register and use the disputed domain name. The Respondent is clearly using the disputed domain name for commercial purposes as the website the disputed name resolves to features prominent banner and skyscraper third party advertisements. The Complainant has also established for the purposes of this proceeding that prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent had not conducted any bona fide business under the Mark. Moreover, the Respondent has failed to come forward with any demonstration or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant points to numerous indicia of bad faith: (1) the registration of the disputed domain name following the public announcement of the equity firm investment in the Complainant; (2) the Respondent’s suspicious use of the single word name “Viktor” when registering the disputed domain name; (3) the Respondent’s lack of an address that can be located on Google maps; (3) the virtually identity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s domain name; and (4) the discussions, postings, advice, and announcements at the website the disputed domain name resolves to are about, related to, or concerning plus sized clothing —the very type of products featured by Complainant. The Panel also notes that the Respondent failed to answer the Complaint and that the physical address provided by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name did not exist when the Center attempted delivery the Complaint. It is also clear to the Panel that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s Mark and website “www.fashiontofigure.com” when registering the disputed domain name for a website featuring information and purported discussions and “blogging” about plus size clothing. Although the script is different the script used by Complainant, the name of the Respondent’s website is “Fashion to Figure” and the text is prominently featured in the websites source code. It is also apparent to the Panel that a visitor lured to the Respondent’s website by the disputed domain name may in fact believe the website and its content is sponsored by the Respondent. The Respondent’s website also offers publicity links and is devoid of any information as to how to contact the Respondent or any webmaster. These circumstances taken in their totality give rise to the settled conclusion that the disputed domain name was 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 disputed domain name <fashiontofigure.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F “Bill” Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: May 24, 2013

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