The Complainant is Christian Dior Couture of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Marc Sabatier, France.
The Respondent is Gui Weiqie of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of 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 10, 2013. On January 10, 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 Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on February 7, 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
The following summary sets out the uncontested factual submissions made by the Complainant:
4.1 The Complainant has been using the DIOR trademark since its creation in 1947.
4.2 The DIOR trademark is used by the Complainant on a wide range goods including: hand bags, purses, wallets, sunglasses, spectacles, leather goods, shoes, clothes, headgear, horological, and chronometric instruments, printed matter and smoker’s articles.
4.3 The Complainant has also registered inter alia the following trademarks:
(a) International trademark DIOR No. 611499, filed on December 24, 1993, in Class 18 in respect of handbags.
(b) International trademark CHRISTIAN DIOR No. 587746, filed on June 5, 1992, in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25 in respect of handbags, wallets, purses.
Both trademark registrations designate various countries including China.
4.4 The Complainant undertakes extensive promotional and advertising activities worldwide in order to enhance the reputation and goodwill of the DIOR trademark.
4.5 In China, the Complainant has more than twelve DIOR stand-alone stores.
4.6 The Respondent offers for sale goods such as handbags, purses and wallets that bear the DIOR trademark through a website that resolves from the disputed domain name. The Respondent also applies the CHRISTIAN DIOR trademark in its website and reproduces an official advertisement campaign of the Complainant featuring the actress, Marion Cotillard and the LADY DIOR handbag. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that it has rights to the DIOR trademark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DIOR trademark. The disputed domain name comprises of the Complainant’s DIOR trademark in its entirety and the generic word “shop”.
5.2 The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name because:
(a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;
(b) the Respondent has not been licensed, contracted or granted authorisation by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain name; and
(c) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
5.3 In relation to the requirement of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends as follows:
(a) the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant’s DIOR trademark as it is a well-known trademark worldwide including China;
(b) the Complainant did not receive any response from the Respondent despite requesting the Respondent in writing to voluntary transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant;
(c) the Respondent took advantage of the notoriety of the DIOR trademark to create the disputed domain name which would lend the Respondent’s website an image of luxury;
(d) the Respondent used the disputed domain name for commercial gain by selling DIOR branded handbags, purses and wallets at a discount and without the consent of the Complainant;
(e) the Respondent also reproduces the Complainant’s CHRISTIAN DIOR trademark, which increases the likelihood of confusion by the public that the disputed domain name belongs or is associated with the Complainant; and
(f) the Respondent reproduces the same names as those used by the Complainant for its handbag collection such as “Panarea”, “Gaucho”, “Granville”, “Cannage” as well as an official advertising campaign of the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant is required to establish the following elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(a) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate rights in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(c) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 6.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied with the evidence adduced by the Complainant to demonstrate its rights to the DIOR trademark. The DIOR trademark is not only registered by the Complainant in numerous jurisdictions but it has also been used extensively by the Complainant to advertise and promote its luxury goods since 1947.
The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s DIOR trademark in its entirety with the additional letters “-shop”. The additional letters do not by themselves, make the disputed domain name distinctive in character. The ordinary meaning of the disputed domain name appears to refer to a point of presence or point of sale of DIOR branded products.
In GA Modefine S.A. v. Mark O'Flynn,WIPO Case No. D2000-1424, a domain name dispute involving the domain name , the panel held that:
“The distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark, ‘ARMANI’, constitutes the core element of the Domain Name. It is indeed obvious that although the Respondent’s Domain Name is composed out of the word ‘armani’ and the (descriptive) word ‘boutique’, the first of these terms is incontestably the principal part of the Domain Name. In this view, the Administrative Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
The Panel is also cognisant of the fact that the Complainant’s rights to the DIOR trademark have been recognised in several past proceedings under the UDRP. E.g. Christian Dior Couture v. Carl Lim, WIPO Case No. D2008-1038 and Christian Dior Couture Company v 301 mozna bldg,WIPO Case No. D2008-0115, where the respective panels ordered that the domain names in dispute therein be transferred to the Complainant.
As such the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DIOR trademark for the purpose of the Policy. 6.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is convinced that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant’s allegations had not been rebutted by the Respondent to indicate whether it had any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. This finding is also supported by the Complainant’s assertion that no licence or any form authorisation was granted to allow the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name
The failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complaint and the evidence adduced by the Complainant leads the Panel to find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel could not find any justification, rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to the words comprising the disputed domain name.
Based on the above circumstances, the Panel is, therefore, satisfied that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been proven by the Complainant. 6.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel agrees with the contention made by the Complainant that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered and started using the disputed domain name.
The degree of similarities between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s distinctive DIOR trademark lend weight to the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that various elements of the Complainant’s marketing material, such as the advertising campaign, have been directly reproduced by the Respondent in its website, without the Complainant’s consent. It is highly unlikely that the Respondent had produced the material independently and without reference to the Complainant’s material.
The Panel also notes that the Respondent’s website is being used to sell handbags and purses that apply the DIOR trademark. These goods are also being offered at discounted rates, all of which are being undertaken without the Complainant’s consent.
The Respondent’s decision to register the disputed domain name and the circumstances of use thereafter suggests bad faith on its part to usurp, and to ride on, the Complainant’s established worldwide goodwill and reputation. By creating this initial interest confusion, the Respondent is then able to tap into and to redirect Internet traffic to its website where the Complainant’s goods are being offered for sale at a discounted price.
In light of the above, the Panel finds that that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin
Sole Panelist
Date: February 21, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy