Today we are going to discuss a domain name dispute regarding the domain name ExclusiveBeauty.com. The Complainant, Exclusive Beauty Club LLC, is a boutique e-retailer based in Florida that sells premium skin care and beauty products.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the term “Exclusive Beauty,” including the EXCLUSIVE BEAUTY CLUB and EXCLUSIVE BEAUTY marks. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2004 and acquired it later, allegedly paying a significant price to the Registrar.
The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a Facebook page that provides SkinBeautifulrx.com as its domain name and states that “Exclusive Beauty” is a skincare spa in the Columbus, Ohio area.
The Complainant filed a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) alleging that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name infringed on the Complainant’s trademark rights.
Complainant’s Case
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to their EXCLUSIVE BEAUTY Mark, in which they hold trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Disputed Domain Name, as they have not been authorised by the Complainant to use their trademark in any way.
Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as it is being used to divert internet users to a Facebook page that provides a domain name and contact email address that is not associated with the Complainant. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Respondent’s Rebuttal
The Respondent submitted a reply to the Complainant’s contentions on July 26, 2022, in which they made the following arguments:
- The Respondent requested that the Panel deny the remedy requested by the Complainant.
- The Respondent claimed that they were not aware of the existence of the similarly-named domain name.
- The Respondent stated that they would cancel the use of the Disputed Domain Name but would not transfer ownership of the domain to the Complainant.
Jury’s Judgement
The panel found that the website associated with the disputed domain name is operated by an entity named “Exclusive Beauty,” but the complainant’s EXCLUSIVE BEAUTY Mark predates the registration of the domain name, and there is no explanation or evidence submitted by the respondent regarding the identity of “Exclusive Beauty LLC.” The respondent goes by “skinbeautifulrx” online and on social media, and did not submit any substantive arguments or evidence to rebut the complainant’s prima facie case.
The respondent claimed that the disputed domain name was purchased for the use of marketing medspa services and not for ecommerce product sales, which is what the complainant provides. However, the panel found that both uses may be easily connected, and that both parties operate in the same general sector.
Although the disputed domain name combines two dictionary terms associated with the beauty sector, the panel found that the circumstances of the case suggest an awareness of the complainant and its mark and services. The respondent had the complainant in mind when it acquired the disputed domain name and used it to take unfair advantage of the confusing similarity with the complainant’s EXCLUSIVE BEAUTY Mark.
The panel also noted that the current inactive or passive holding of the disputed domain name by the respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with no content, but considering the previous use of the disputed domain name, the panel found that the current passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Complaint was denied.
You can read the case in full detail here.
Join the Discussion