WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1107 for calvinklein.amsterdam
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, Calvin Klein Inc. v. Camille Walters Case No. D2018-1107 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, Calvin Klein Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP, Canada.
The Respondent is Camille Walters of Breda, the Netherlands, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 16, 2018. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 17, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response informing that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center sent an email communication in Dutch and English to the Parties on May 22, 2018, regarding the language of the proceeding, as the Complaint was submitted in English and the language of the registration agreement for the Domain Name is Dutch. The Complainant confirmed its request for English to be the language of the proceeding on May 22, 2018. On the same day, the Respondent sent an email communication in English to the Center with the possibility of transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant. Taking into account the Respondent’s email, the Center sent an email to the Parties inviting the Complainant to request a suspension of the proceeding so that the Parties could explore settlement options. The Complainant sent an email requesting the suspension of the proceeding on May 24, 2018. The Center notified the Parties of the suspension of the proceeding on May 24, 2018. The Complainant requested by email the reinstitution of the proceeding on June 11, 2018. The Center reinstituted the proceeding on June 12, 2018.
The Center verified that 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 June 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on July 11, 2018.
The Center appointed Geert Glas as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Calvin Klein, Inc, collectively referred to as Complainant, have been engaged for years in the worldwide production, sale, and licensing of men’s and women’s apparel, fragrances, accessories, footwear, and other merchandise.
The Complainant holds trademark registrations for CALVIN KLEIN in various jurisdictions, including in the United States with trademark registration number 1086041, registered on February 21, 1978., as well as in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Union, China, the Russia Federation, and the Netherlands.
The Registrar has confirmed to the Center on May 17, 2018, that the Domain Name has been registered to Camille Walters, the Respondent, since December 30, 2017. It appears from the Complaint that the website to which the Domain Name resolves displays the message: “[t]he domain name has been deleted”. Additionally, the website contains (i) a listing of other domain names that are offered for sale, such as and and (ii) a search function allowing the visitor to search through “millions of domains”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to it on the following grounds:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (first element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy)
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CALVIN KLEIN trademark. With regard to said trademark, the Complainant contends that it has developed considerable goodwill. The Complainant supports this position by referring to millions of customers and billions of dollars in sales. The Complainant further argues that it has spent considerable efforts on promotional campaigns, and that its website “” has received hundreds of millions of visitors since its launch. The Complainant contends that its numerous trademark registrations and widespread use, advertising, and promotion of the Calvin Klein marks establish rights in the mark pursuant to the first element of paragraph 4 of the Policy.
The Complainant points out that the Domain Name incorporates the trademark CALVIN KLEIN in its entirety and that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.amsterdam” further adds to the confusion given that the Complainant has a physical presence with stores in the Netherlands, and that its parent company, PVH, has an office in Amsterdam.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (second element (ii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy)
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name since (i) the Respondent had constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN trademark registrations, which predate Respondent’s registration by nearly fifty years; (ii) Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN marks are well known and famous and have been so for many years; (iii) the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial purpose; (iv) the Respondent is likely not commonly known by the name “Calvin Klein”; and (v) the Complainant has not authorised or licensed the Respondent to register the Domain Name.
(iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith (third element (iii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy)
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith since the Respondent is diverting Complainant’s customers or potential customers seeking information about the Complainant to a website over which the Complainant has no control.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name solely to prevent the Complainant from doing so, and that it was acquired for the purpose of selling the Domain Name for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. In support, the Complainant contends that an email correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent demonstrates the Respondent’s attempt to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant; the refusal to transfer the Domain Name before payment was made; and the refusal to provide documentation evidencing the Respondent’s reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three elements that must be established by a complainant to merit a finding that a respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration, and to obtain relief. These elements are that:
(i) the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Language of the proceeding
Before considering the three elements of paragraph 4(a), the issue of the language of the proceeding should be addressed.
The complaint was filed in English and the Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English because the Domain Name and the website to which the Domain Name resolves are in English. The Center has made a preliminary determination to accept the complaint filed in English, noting the Panel’s authority to determine the language of proceedings.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, i.e.,