WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Complainant: Fortnum & Mason PLC of 181 Piccadilly, London, W1A 1ER, United Kingdom

Respondent: Corporate Business Sales Limited, 89 The Highway, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 3PL, United Kingdom.

Domain Name: "fortnumandmasondirect.com"

Registrar: Network Solutions Inc.

The Complaint was filed on September 13, 2000. WIPO verified that the Complaint satisfies the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and that payment was properly made. The panelist is satisfied this is the case.

The Complaint was properly notified in accordance with Rules, paragraph 2 (a). No formal Response was filed by the Respondent who is in default. The administrative panel was properly constituted. The undersigned panelist submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.

No further submissions were received by WIPO or the Panel as a consequence of which the date scheduled for the issuance of the Panel’s decision was November 9, 2000.

The Complainant is the owner of registered trade marks for the mark FORTNUM & MASON in the UK and in many countries around the world.

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that:

The Complainant was established in 1707 and, since that date, has built up an extremely substantial reputation as a retailer of high-quality goods and services under the trade mark FORTNUM & MASON. In the year to end 10 July 1999 the Complainant's turnover exceeded £36 million.

The reputation and goodwill attaching to the trade mark FORTNUM & MASON is particularly strong in the United Kingdom where the Complainant is based, but the mark is also extremely well known world-wide. The Complainant has an extensive world-wide mail order business. Much of this world-wide mail order business is now conducted via the Internet. The Complainant's website is at "www.fortnumandmason.com". The Complainant exhibited to the Complaint a selection of press cuttings showing the fame and repute of the Complainant and its FORTNUM & MASON trade mark.

The extent of the Complainant's world-wide reputation and goodwill in the trade mark FORTNUM & MASON is such that it is distinctive of the Complainant and exclusively associated with it.

In addition to the unregistered, common law rights that the Complainant has built up in the trade mark FORTNUM & MASON as a result of its extensive use over a period of almost three hundred years, the Complainant has the following registrations for the trade mark FORTNUM & MASON:

The Complainant annexed to the Complaint copies of printouts from the UK Patent Office database, giving details of the registered UK trade marks as at July 10, 2000.

The Respondent is not a licensee, or otherwise authorised to use the Complainant's trade marks.

The domain name registered by the Respondent, "fortnumandmasondirect.com", is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark FORTNUM & MASON.

The Disputed Domain Name is the Complainant's distinctive trade mark FORTNUM & MASON, with the addition of the word "direct". The addition of the word "direct" to the distinctive and well known trade mark of a retailer is an obvious and descriptive means of indicating the Internet-based service of that retailer.

This approach of adding the word "direct" to a retailer's established trade mark for its online operation has been adopted by many retailers in the United Kingdom. This fact is acknowledged by the Respondent in its letter to DLA dated May 29, 2000, which was annexed to the Complaint. In this letter the Respondent states "this name ["fortnumandmasondirect.com"] is invaluable to your client as numerous companies have added direct to their company name. If you feel your client can do without the name, we understand, though we feel it will be a great loss to them".

Members of the public will undoubtedly be confused into thinking that "fortnumandmasondirect.com" is a domain name representing an online operation of the Complainant.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

It is clear that the Respondent is fully aware that FORTNUM & MASON is the Complainant's trade mark and that the Complainant has all rights and legitimate interests in the trade mark. The Complainant is also aware that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The Respondent implicitly acknowledges that the Complainant has all rights to and legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name by the statement that "this name is invaluable to your client….." in its letter dated May 29, 2000. Further, the statement in the same letter that "we do not intend to use the domain name or transfer it to a third party" implicitly acknowledges that no one other than the Complainant has any right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.

Before notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent had made no use of the domain name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services, nor had it made any demonstrable preparations to make a bona fide use of the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name. Indeed, in its letter of May 29, 2000, the Respondent stated "we do not intend to use the domain name….".

The Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name.

The Respondent is not making any legitimate non commercial or fair use of the domain name. It has confirmed it will not use the domain name for its own use and by way of letter, a copy of which was annexed to the Complaint it offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant for £85,000 (eighty five thousand pounds sterling). This was subsequently reduced to £25,000 (twenty five thousand pounds sterling) in a letter dated July 17, 2000, from solicitors instructed by the Respondent, a copy of which was annexed to the Complaint.

The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name registration to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs. This is apparent from the Respondent's letter to DLA dated May 29, 2000. In this letter, the Respondent, states "we do not intend to use the domain name or transfer it to a third party" and "should your clients offer £85,000, we will take all the necessary steps to transfer the domain name "fortnumandmasondirect.com", to your clients".

By stating that it will not use the Disputed Domain Name for its own use, or transfer it to a third party, the Respondent has made clear that it registered the domain name solely for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant.

As made clear by paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy the conduct described above amounts to unambiguous evidence of registration and use in bad faith. This has been confirmed by the decision in World Wrestling Entertainment Inc v Michael Bosman (WIPO Case Number D99-0001).

The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trade mark in a corresponding domain name. This is made clear by the statement in the Respondent's letter of May 29, 2000, that "this name is invaluable to your client as numerous companies have added direct to their company name. If you feel your client can do without the name, we understand, though we feel it would be a great loss to them".

That the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trade mark in a corresponding domain name is further made clear by the statement in the Respondent's solicitors' letter dated July 17, 2000, (based on a misunderstanding of the Policy): "Our client is quite content to abide the outcome of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It is aware, as no doubt your client is, that the Dispute Resolution Policy cannot compel the transfer of a Domain name even if it effectively disables it. Our client has no wish to cause harm to your client...."

The Respondent hoped and intended that by depriving the Complainant of the Disputed Domain Name, it would force the Complainant to pay a sum considerably in excess of its out of pocket expenses, in order to secure a domain name vital to its business.

Further, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct such as this. In its letter of 29 May 2000, the Respondent states that it has sold "lillywhitesdirect.com" for £110,000 and "austinreeddirect.com" for £160,000. A list of domain names registered by the Respondent, as recorded on Network Solutions' Whois database, was annexed to the Complaint. From this it can be seen that the Respondent has registered a number of domain names containing the extremely well-known trade marks of third parties, including "hamleysdirect.com", "austinreeddirect.com", "harveynicolsdirect.com", "lillywhitesdirect.com", "bookerdirect.com", "aspreydirect.com", "bhsdirect.com" and house of "fraserdirect.com", in which those third parties have very substantial goodwill and reputation both in the UK and world-wide. This conduct amounts to unambiguous evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

The Respondent's conduct has been a blatant and deliberate attempt to persuade the owners of well-known trade marks to pay substantial sums of money to the Respondent, to recover from it domain names including their trade marks, in which the Respondent has, as it is fully aware, no rights or legitimate interest.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not filed a formal Response and is in default.

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

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

(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A Identical or confusing similarity

It is prima facie obvious that the Domain Name is virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. It is not possible to register an ampersand as part of a domain name and so "fortnumandmason" is the closest equivalent to FORTNUM & MASON possible as part of a domain name. The addition of the non distinctive word "direct" does nothing to prevent the confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trade marks.

B Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent

The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

C Bad Faith

Paragraph 4 (b) of the Rules sets out four non exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including "the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name" and "the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct".

In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, there appears to be no explanation of the facts other than that the Respondent registered the Complainant’s trade marks as domain names with an intent to use them to demand unwarranted profit in bad faith and in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. The Complainant has clearly established that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of such behavior.

In the light of the foregoing, the panelist decides that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Names which were registered and used in bad faith.

Accordingly, in the light of the above, the panelist requires that the registration of the Domain Name "FORTNUMAND MASONDIRECT.COM" BE TRANSFERRED to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Presiding Panelist

Dated: September 4, 2000