VICI Collection, LLC v bo pam

WIPO Case No. D2023-1049

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

VICI Collection, LLC v. bo pam

Case No. D2023-1049

1. The Parties

The Complainant is VICI Collection, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Ropes & Gray LLP, United States.

The Respondent is bo pam, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <vici-us.shop> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2023.

On March 9, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 9, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 10, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 14, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 22, 2023. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 11, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 12, 2023.

The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant provides garments for women, along with fashion advice services. The Complainant has a physical store in Nashville, Tennessee, United States, and provides shipping from its online collections across a dozen countries.

The Complainant has registered various trademarks consisting of or including VICI, such as the United

States trademark registration for VICI (word), registered under No. 4,563,922 as of July 8, 2014.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 29, 2022, and resolves to a website purporting to sell

VICI-branded goods at discounted prices.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name merely adds the geographical, descriptive term “us”

and a hyphen to the Complainant’s registered trademark VICI and is therefore confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s registered trademark.

As regards the second element, the Complainant argues that there is no relationship or affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent giving rise to any license, permission or other rights by which the

Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s registered VICI trademark.

The website at the disputed domain name imitates the Complainant’s website and falsely pretends to be the

Complainant and to sell the Complainant’s products, which evidences the Respondent’s intent to attract

Internet users who may be confused and believe that it is a website held, controlled by, or somehow related

to or endorsed by the Complainant, for the Respondent’s commercial gain.

With respect to the third element, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed

domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark, without any

relationship with the Complainant, is evidence of bad-faith registration and use. The website at the disputed

domain name purportedly sells the Complainant’s products using the exact same photographs as those on

the Complainant’s official website. The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed

domain name and on the website demonstrates the Respondent’s attempt to imitate or associate itself with

the Complainant, which evidences bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Matters

No communication has been received from the Respondent in this case. However, given that the Complaint was sent to the relevant email and postal addresses disclosed by the Registrar, the Panel considers that this

satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means

calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it can proceed to determine the

Complaint based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant as per paragraph 15(a) of

the Rules and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. While the

Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the

Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

page 3

The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the

evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the

case. See section 4.2, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0“).

6.2. Substantive Matters

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(i)        that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

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

(iii)      that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has proved rights over the VICI trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the

VICI trademark, in addition to the term “us”, a hyphen and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”.

The addition of “us” and of a hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s

trademarks. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark is sufficient to

establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, despite the addition of other words to
such trademarks. The addition of another term (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless,
or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The gTLD is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks

and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

As established by previous UDRP panels, it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case demonstrating that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

In the present case, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that it holds rights over the trademark VICI and claims that the Respondent has no legitimate reason to acquire and use the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does the Respondent appear to engage in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. Rather, according to the unrebutted evidence of the Complainant, the website at the disputed domain name is used to offer for sale VICI goods at a discounted price. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the products offered on the website at the disputed domain name are counterfeit of

the Complainant’s products. Even if the products were genuine, the lack of any disclaimer on the website at

the disputed domain name as to the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner or the lack thereof,

would falsely suggest to Internet users that the website to which the disputed domain name resolved is
owned by the Complainant or at least affiliated to the Complainant (as per the Oki Data principles outlined in

Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). The Respondent has used the

Complainant’s trademark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to appear to be a

page 4

website authorized by the Complainant in an act of passing off, which cannot be bona fide use.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainants’ trademark in its entirety,

adding the term “us” that might refer to the Complainant’s psychical location cannot be considered fair as it

falsely suggests an affiliation with the Complainant that does not exist (see section 2.5 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0).

Also, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie

case because the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.

With the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified

in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain

name’s registration and use in bad faith.

The Complainant’s registration and use of the relevant trademarks predate the date at which the Respondent

registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website reproducing the

Complainant’s trademark and purportedly offering for sale the Complainant’s products but at a much lower

price. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent

has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks, and to target

those trademarks.

The inherently misleading disputed domain name resolves to a website, which ostensibly offers the

Complainant’s products at a much lower price. As such, the disputed domain name suggests affiliation with

the Complainant in order to attract consumers and offer products that appear to be counterfeit.

Moreover, the Respondent has not formally participated in these proceedings and has failed to rebut the

Complainant’s contentions and to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use and indeed

none would seem plausible.

In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of the case represent evidence of registration and use in bad faith of

the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to bring evidence as to the contrary. Consequently, the

Panel concludes that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled.

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, <vici-us.shop> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mihaela Maravela/

Mihaela Maravela

Sole Panelist
Date: May 4, 2023