WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1709 for selfportraitdresssale.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Self-Portrait IP Limited v. Xinnet Whois Privacy Pro Service / Sun yanqi, Sun yan qi Case No. D2018-1709 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Self-Portrait IP Limited of Hong Kong, China, represented by Taylor Wessing, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Xinnet Whois Privacy Pro Service / Sun yanqi, Sun yan qi of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 27, 2018. On July 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 30, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 3, 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 amended Complaint on August 3, 2018.
On August 3, 2018, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 9, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 29, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 30, 2018.
The Center appointed Linda Chang as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 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
Self-Portrait is a contemporary fashion label founded in 2013 and sold internationally in over 40 countries across Europe, Asia, Australasia and the United States of America. The Complainant is the owner of numerous SELF-PORTRAIT trademark registrations around the world, including International Registration No. 1226502, registered on October 2, 2014. The Complainant operates a global Self-Portrait website at “”.
The Domain Name was registered on January 16, 2018. It used to resolve to a website displaying contents in English and offering for sale “Self-Portrait” branded clothing, but is currently redirected to the Complainant’s website at “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name consists of the name “self-portrait” combined with the descriptive suffix “dress sale”. The combination of the words “dress sale” with the name “self-portrait” conveys the meaning that the Domain Name relates to clothing and retrial services offered by the Complainant, or an economic undertaking otherwise connected with the Complainant. The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to the SELF-PORTRAIT trademark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name, or that the Respondent is or could be making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
The Complainant finally contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s reputed SELF-PORTRAIT mark and its business. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not r