Milly LLC of New York, New York, just won control of the domain name Milly.com in a UDRP which was owned by Mrs. Jello, LLC which of course the company owned by the late Igal Lichtman.
Sadly no one responded to the UDRP on behalf of Mrs. Jello, LLC, although someone apparently rejected an offer presented sometime this year by the Complaintant and changed the parked page from adult links to links to the Complainant
Milly LLC has been using the domain name MillyNy.com for its website since 2001
Here are the relevant facts and findings of the three member panel:
“”Complainant has used the trademark MILLY (the “MILLY Mark”) in the United States since at least as early as 2001, and has since used the MILLY Mark in many other countries.
Complainant owns six United States trademark registrations for the MILLY Mark, as well as United States registrations for the MILLY Mark (stylized) and the MILLY formative marks MILLY CABANA, MILLY MINIS and MILLY NY.
Complainant also owns trademark registrations for the MILLY Mark in Turkey, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Kuwait, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Bahrain, Australia, Singapore, the Russian Federation and Switzerland. In addition, C
The complainant has and has operated the MILLY website at millyny.com this address since 2001. C
Complainant also purchases keywords and adwords so that it its website appears as a sponsored ad in Google search results.
For many years, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a pornographic website.
In February of 2014, due to the continued harm caused to Complainant from Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name for pornographic purposes, Complainant attempted to purchase the Disputed Doman Name, but Complainant’s offer was rejected. Following the rejection of Complainant’s offer, the Disputed Domain Name ceased to resolve to a pornographic website, and instead resolve to a parked domain for a website that posts sponsored links to other websites, almost all of which link to “www.millyny.com”, its competitors’ and other websites that sell clothing, handbags and accessories.
Respondent has not contested these allegations or offered any explanation of why it might have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The factual record as presented in this proceeding is sparse regarding the original registration of the Disputed Domain Name and its early uses.
The Panel notes that the Registrar’s reply to the Center’s request for information states the domain name record was created on December 2, 1999 but is silent as to the date this Respondent registered or acquired the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name contained little or no content for some undefined period of time. The Disputed Domain Name was then re-directed to a pornographic website and contained this content for a significant period of time.
After rejecting Complainant’s offer to purchase the Disputed Domain Name in 2014, Respondent re-directed the Disputed Domain Name to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website focused on the fashion industry including Complainant’s products and those of Complainant’s competitors.
Respondent has not contested Complainant’s allegations surrounding registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.
Both the former and present use of the Disputed Domain Name show Respondent’s intent, namely, opportunistic bad faith evidenced by Respondent’s knowing abuse of Complainant’s mark. Respondent, a sophisticated domainer, had Complainant’s business and the MILLY Mark in mind when it re-directed the Disputed Domain Name to a PPC website and intended to attract confused consumers by hosting links targeting Complainant’s competitors for commercial gain.
Without the need to discuss various approaches referenced by Complainant, the Panel finds that the present evidence establishes the necessary elements of bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). The fact that Respondent may have registered the Disputed Domain Name prior to Complainant’s acquisition of trademark rights does not per se preclude a finding of bad faith under the circumstances of this case for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
