The Complainant is Consitex S.A. of Stabio, Switzerland; Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A. of Biella, Italy; and Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation of New York, United States of America (“US”), represented by Jacobacci & Associati, Italy.

The Respondent is Zhang Xuemei of the US. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names and are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2013. On November 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 16, 2013 and November 19, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On November 20, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the Complainant, requesting the Complainant to correct a spelling mistake as to the Respondent’s address. The Complainant transmitted by email to the Center its Amended Complaint on the same day.

According to the confirmation from the Registrar, the disputed domain names were set to expire on December 31, 2013. The Center transmitted an email to the parties reminding the expiry issue of the disputed domain names. According to the public WhoIs information dated December 12, 2013, the current expiration date of the disputed domain names is December 31, 2014.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the Amended 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and Amended Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 11, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 12, 2013.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 2013. 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 A. Complainant

The Complainant (the Zegna group of companies) comprises three companies incorporated in Switzerland, Italy and the US.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the trademarks ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA and EZ (the “Trade Marks”).

The Trade Marks are well-known trademarks in the fashion field. B. Respondent

The Respondent is apparently an individual based in the US. C. The Disputed Domain Names

The disputed domain names were registered on December 31, 2012. D. The Websites at the Disputed Domain Names

The websites at the disputed domain names (the “Websites”) appear to promote and offer for sale leather belts and wallets under the Trade Marks of the Complainant. They also appear to offer for sale products of the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant made the following submissions in the Complaint.

The Complainant is one of the world’s leading fashion groups. The Trade Marks are well-known trademarks used by the Complainant worldwide. The Trade Marks were first used before World War II.

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. They incorporate the Trade Marks in their entirety, together with the non-distinctive words “2013” and “tw”, which corresponds with Taiwan Province of China, where the Complainant operates and its Trade Marks are well-known.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not making a bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names have been registered a