The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, along with Interplanet Productions Limited and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company, sought to take control of HouseOfTaylor.info, claiming the domain was identical to their HOUSE OF TAYLOR trademarks and was being held in bad faith. The Complainant argued that the inactive status of the domain, displaying only a “Coming Soon” page, supported a finding of bad faith.
The Respondent, listed as House of Taylor Pvt Ltd of India, did not file a response. However, the Panel noted that the domain registration details themselves showed that the Respondent had been commonly known by the name “House of Taylor.”
In our opinion, this assessment and subsequent decision were remarkably flawed. The WHOIS information could have been faked and there is no indication that the panel actually verified any of it—in fact, it noted that the Registrar, allegedly, verified that information!
Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain name HouseOfTaylor.info to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.DECISION
The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company v. House of Taylor / House of Taylor Pvt Ltd
Claim Number: FA2506002163174
PARTIES
Complainant is The Elizabeth Taylor Trust, Interplanet Productions Limited and The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen J. Strauss of BUCHALTER, California, USA. Respondent is House of Taylor / House of Taylor Pvt Ltd (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is houseoftaylor.info, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 27, 2025. Forum received payment on June 27, 2025.
On June 30, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the houseoftaylor.info domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@houseoftaylor.info. Also on July 2, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
In the instant proceedings, there are three Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint”.
In 1978, the late famous actress Elizabeth Taylor assigned rights in her name, likeness and appearance to her company, Interplanet Productions Limited. Subsequently, Ms. Taylor and lnterplanet Productions Limited licensed the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR names and marks to The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company. Upon her death in 2011, The Elizabeth Taylor Trust (“Trust”) succeeded to all of Ms. Taylor’s post-mortem publicity rights not previously assigned to Interplanet Productions Limited.
The Panel finds that these circumstances establish a sufficient nexus between the Complainants such that each can claim to have rights to the domain name listed in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Complainants are hereafter collectively referred to as “Complainant”.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company owns numerous United States trademark registrations for ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR and an India trademark registration for ELIZABETH TAYLOR’S and Design. lnterplanet Productions Limited owns numerous United States trademark and service mark registrations covering marks incorporating “ELIZABETH
TAYLOR” and “HOUSE OF TAYLOR”.
The houseoftaylor.info domain name is identical to the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR trademarks and service marks in which Complainant has rights.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the houseoftaylor.info domain name, which was registered long after Complainant began commercially using Complainant’s marks. To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Complainant has no relationship with Respondent, nor has Complainant given permission or authorized Respondent to register and use the contested domain name.
To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent has not been commonly known by the contested domain name.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks when the contested domain was registered.
Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the contested domain, which does not currently link to any active website. Instead, the domain links to an inactive webpage stating: “We’re under construction. Please check back for an update soon.” Such a use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See, Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Tracy Marnati, FA2503002143526 (Forum March 31, 2025) (“The Domain Name is inactive (resolving to a page stating “We’re
The houseoftaylor.info domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Respondent’s passive holding of the contested domain constitutes evidence of bad faith. Moreover, there is no conceivable active use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of Complainant’s rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks.
Respondent’s unauthorized houseoftaylor.info domain usurps Complainant’s rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks, and blocks Complainant’s ability to control use of the marks as domains.
Respondent’s registration of the contested domain, despite knowledge of Complainant’s collective common law and registered rights in the ELIZABETH TAYLOR and HOUSE OF TAYLOR marks, is also evidence, in and of itself, of bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company has rights in the United States registered mark HOUSE OF TAYLOR, namely USPTO Reg. No. 5,729,859, registered on April 16, 2019 for cosmetics, non-medicated skin care preparations, fragrances, in International Class 3. The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company also has rights in the Indian registered mark ELIZABETH TAYLOR’S, application No. 502379, with the application date December 16, 1988, also for goods in International Class 3 including soaps, cleaning preparations, perfumes and colognes.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.
The Panel finds Respondent’s houseoftaylor.info domain name to be identical to Complainant’s HOUSE OF TAYLOR mark, since the inconsequential “.info” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Registrar verified that the details for the registrant, technical, administrative, and billing contacts are as follows:
Name – House of Taylor Pvt Ltd
Organization – House of Taylor
Street Address – 18,Bharathiyar St
City – Methanagar
State/Province – Chennai, Tamil Nadu
2 Letter ISO Country Code – IN
Postal Code – 600029…
This information satisfies the Panel that Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name and that, accordingly, Respondent has rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In light of the Panel’s finding above, it is unnecessary to consider this element.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the houseoftaylor.info domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: July 24, 2025
