The Complainant is IM Production of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Vittoz, France.
The Respondent is he le of Tianjin, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 4, 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 10 and 11, 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. On April 11, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of proceedings. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.
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 April 17, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 7, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 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 Complainant is the registered proprietor of the trademark ISABEL MARANT in many countries around the world. Most importantly it has registrations in China in the following classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 24 and 25.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark ISABEL MARANT to which the generic or descriptive terms “official” and “mall” have been added. The disputed domain name is, therefore, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark ISABEL MARANT.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for ISABEL MARANT.
Further the Complainant submits that the website under the disputed domain name sells products that are most likely counterfeit but which also display ISABEL MARANT trademark.
Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the ISABEL MARANT trademark. The unauthorized sale of products by the Respondent on the website at the disputed domain name that gives the impression of being a genuine website is clearly use in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a very simple case of domain name hijacking for the purposes of commercial gain which the UDRP was designed to stop. A. Language of Proceedings
The language of the Registration Agreement is in Chinese. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that:
“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, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
The Complainant requested the language of the proceedings be English on the following grounds:
1. the disputed domain name is written in Latin letters;
2. the disputed domain name includes the English words “official” and “mall”.
3. the website associated with the disputed domain name is written entirely in English;
The third factor is the most important. There can be no doubt that the Respondent is able to handle these proceedings in English. The website under the disputed domain name is written entirely in English and designed to do business worldwide in English. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel, therefore, determines that English shall be the language of the proceedings. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark ISABEL MARANT and descriptive terms, “official” and “mall”. The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the registered trademark ISABEL MARANT.
The first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests.
The use made by the Respondent of the website under the disputed domain name where the Complainant’s trademark features prominently and apparently counterfeit products are sold make it hard to imagine that the Respondent could ever establish any rights or legitimate interests.
Clearly, none of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
This case clearly falls with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The third part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing 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.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Dated: June10, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy