WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-2616 for breitlingwatches.xyz
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Breitling SA v. Aleksandr V Tyan, Private Person Case No. D2018-2616 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Breitling SA of Grenchen, Switzerland, represented by BMG Avocats, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Aleksandr V Tyan, Private Person of St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “disputed domain name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2018. On November 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 16, 2018, 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.
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 November 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 20, 2018.
The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on December 27, 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 Switzerland in 1884 and has manufactured and sold watches ever since.
The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks, amongst others:
International registration No. 613794 for BREITLING & design in class 14 with extension to the Russian Federation.
International registration No. 890749 for BREITLING in class 14 with extension to the Russian Federation.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 4, 2017. Later, the disputed domain name resolved to where a wide range of trademark watches were offered and where unauthorized Complainant’s products and trademarks were displayed. Currently the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants alleges to be the owner of the BREITILING trademark and on that basis sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent regarding the disputed domain name. The Respondent did no answer to it.
The Complainant asserts that BREITLING is an especially well-known trademark in the field of technical watches and the disputed domain name wholly incorporates it. The adjunction of the word “watches” further creates confusion since it is directly related to the Complainant.
The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor has the Complainant granted the Respondent authorization to use the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that there is no indication that the disputed domain name corresponds to the Respondent’s name.
Further, the Complainant supports the lack of rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Respondent’s clear and cut intention for commercial gain as described with regard to the third element.
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant’s use and registration of its trademark BREITLING in various regions of the world which leads the trademark to be recognizable and well known in numerous jurisdictions. The mark BREITLING is not a dictionary word and has no particular meaning. The disputed domain name used to resolve to a website promoting unauthorized BREITLING products where the name and trademark of the Complainant was displayed. Thus, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant´s mark.
With respect to the use of the disputed domain name the Complainant asserts that using a domain name to facilitate the sale of unauthorized goods is strong evidence of bad faith. Furth