WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Brody Cruise Case No. D2018-1838 1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Dallas Morning News, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Jackson Walker, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States / Brody Cruise of Bancroft, Ontario, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2018. On August 13, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing:

(a) it is the Registrar for the disputed domain name,

(b) the registration agreement is in English,

(d) the disputed domain name was first registered on October 1, 2014 by the second-named Respondent (the Respondent), and

(e) registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 17, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 22, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant was established in 1885 in Dallas, Texas in the United States as a newspaper publisher. In June 1978, it began publishing a fashion supplement under the name “Fashion Dallas”. In 2006, the Complainant began publishing the supplement in a new monthly magazine format under the name “FD Luxe”. In around July 2014, the name of the magazine was changed simply to “FD”. Publication of the magazine was discontinued in February 2016. In 2015, the magazine’s circulation was 80,000 copies.

The Complainant owns two registered trademarks in the United States:

(a) Registered Trademark No. 4,546,914 for FD LUXE in relation to a range of goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41. This trademark was registered on June 10, 2014 asserting a first use in commerce on April 1, 2012.

(b) Registered Trademark No. 4,546,915 for a stylised or fancy version of FD LUXE in relation to a range of goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41. This trademark was also registered on June 10, 2014 asserting a first use in commerce on April 1, 2012.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 1, 2014.

At least until recently, it has resolved to a website which has reproduced articles from the Complainant’s magazine without permission. 5. Discussion and Findings

No response has been filed. The Complaint has been sent, however, to the Respondent at the physical and electronic coordinates specified in the WhoIs record (and confirmed as correct by the Registrar) in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to present its case.

When a respondent has defaulted, paragraph 14(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to proceed to a decision on the Complaint in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide the dispute on the basis of the statements and documents that have been submitted and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar t