Limited Stores, LLC which operate the Limited Stores, just lost a UDRP on the domain name limitedcoupon.com despite the fact that the domain holder did not file a response
The Complainant’s allegations of bad faith are all said to be on the basis of “upon information and belief”.
What information and by whom was it provided?
The Complaint does not say.
In fact, on this topic the Complaint is remarkably short of information. “Upon information and belief” appears to be a short-form expression meaning “we have no relevant information, but bad faith is to be inferred from the facts and we believe that that is the appropriate inference to draw”.
The “facts” in question are the following:
1. The Complainant claims that its trade mark, THE LIMITED, is very well known in the United States of America.
2. It is so well known that the Respondent must have known of it when registering the Domain Name.
3. The fact that the Respondent has added the word “coupon” to the word “limited” is indicative of the fact that the Respondent had retailers in mind, coupons being a common marketing device for retailers. In this context the word “limited” can only be a reference to the Complainant and the Complainant’s trade mark, THE LIMITED.
4. This is supported by the fact that the Respondent’s webpage features numerous links to other retailers and their coupons.
5. On top of all that, the Complainant’s trade mark registrations are United States federal trade mark registrations and by operation of United States law the Respondent has constructive notice of those registrations.
The Panel is not persuaded.
The word “limited” is a dictionary word.
Is the Complainant’s fame in the United States of America under the name THE LIMITED so substantial that a resident of Vancouver, Canada must have heard of it?
It is possible, of course, but the Panel has been given no information upon which to make that leap.
The Panel is also concerned that the definite article present in the Complainant’s trade marks is absent from the Domain Name. In the view of the Panel the absence of the definite article from the Domain Name could be a significant factor militating against a likelihood of confusion. It is to be observed that no evidence of any kind has been put before the Panel to demonstrate that “Limited” on its own (i.e.…
