The Complainant is Richemont International SA of Villars-sur-Glane, Switzerland, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is of Guangzhou, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 8, 2013. On January 9, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 10, 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 for the disputed domain name.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 14, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 3, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 4, 2013.
The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 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
1. The Complainant is the owner of the IWC trade mark and brand (hereafter "IWC"), a premium brand in the international luxury watch segment. Founded in 1868, the Complainant has been creating masterpieces of haute horogerie that combine precision engineering with exclusive design for over 140 years.
2. All genuine IWC watches are distributed throughout a worldwide network of IWC boutiques and authorized IWC retailers. There are currently over 150 authorised IWC retailers in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America. In 2009, the Complainant began opening its own boutique selling exclusive IWC watches and there are now IWC boutiques in strategic locations across the world, including Hong Kong, Paris, New York City, San Paolo, Abu Dhabi and Moscow.
3. The Complainant operates its extensive website featuring information about its activities in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America at “”. At Annex 4 to the Complaint are copies of web pages from the “” website.
4. One of the range of watches marketed by the Complainant using the IWC mark is the "Pilot" range details of which are set out in the Complainant's website set out in Annex 4 to the Complaint. This range of watches is described as either "the Pilots watches" or "IWC Pilots watches". According to the extract from the website, the Complainant launched its first "IWC special pilots watch" in 1936.
5. In the absence of a Response, the only evidence of the Respondent's activities is set out in the Complaint. At Annex 7 to the Complaint is exhibited an extract from the Respondent's website which refers to "IWC pilot replica watches from " with a reference to "buy cheap replica watches online from ".
6. In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the evidence submitted by the Complainant in its Complaint is true. It therefore proceeds to determine this Complaint on that basis. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits:
1. That it has trade mark rights in the mark IWC and that the mark is being used in relation to the Complainant's pilot range of watches. It submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark IWC.
2. The Respondent submits that the Complainant lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the IWC mark. The Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name and is not making lawful use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any licence or consent to use the mark IWC.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant's rights. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to publish websites promoting competing products and/or counterfeit versions of the Complainant's own products. Such activities are disruptive to the Complainant's business and are therefore evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
In the absence of a Response, there are no contentions from the Respondent. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy stipulates that the Complainant has to establish the following before it can successfully obtain an order for the remedy requested in these proceedings, i.e. a transfer of the disputed domain name:
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(c) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Having considered the evidence of the Complainant's trade mark rights, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has trade mark rights covering watches in respect of the mark IWC. There is also evidence before the Panel that the mark IWC is being used in respect of the Complainant's "Pilot" range of watches.
The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IWC mark. This forms the pre-fix to the disputed domain name. The suffix consists of the word "pilot" which is identical to the Complainant's range of watches. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark IWC in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the Panel's view, the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has any rights in the disputed domain name. In particular there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the IWC mark nor that it has traded using the IWC mark. It accepts the Complainant's submission that the Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name. The evidence of the Respondent's website shows that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to publish websites that offer products for sale that compete directly with the Complainant's products or in respect of what appears to be counterfeit versions of the Complainant's products.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Complainant has also submitted that it has not granted the Respondent any licence, permission or authorization to use the disputed domain name.
It therefore follows that the Panel finds for the Complainant and that it has satisfied that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the view that the prior existence of the Complainant's trade mark rights and long use of the mark IWC both by itself and in conjunction with "Pilot" is evidence that the Respondent would have had actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark rights. This is supported by the evidence of the Respondent's website which refers to competing products of the Complainant. The use of the website by the Complainant is evidence of activities disruptive to the Complainant's business and therefore conclusive evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In the absence of a Response, there is no evidence of any entitlement by the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name. In these circumstances the Panel is entitled to take the view that the registration of the disputed domain name was undertaken in bad faith to enable the Respondent to trade off of the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant's mark.
Accordingly, the Panels finds that the circumstances of this case fall within the provisions of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy that by using the disputed domain name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location of product or service on its website or location.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the above reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy