The Complainant is Jeanne Lanvin Company of Paris, France, represented by Hoche Societé d'Avocats, France.
The Respondent is lin tao of Xiamen, Fujian Province, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Click Registrar, Inc. d/b/a (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 29, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 30, 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. In response to a notification by the Center regarding the Registrar information, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 31, 2013.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 3, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 23, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2013.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on June 28, 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 an international French fashion house. It is in fact one of the oldest French fashion house still in activity, as it was created in 1885.
The international renown of the mark LANVIN was duly produced by the Complainant, as well as proof of the registrations owned throughout the world for this mark. In fact, the LANVIN trademark is undoubtedly
well-known throughout the world.
The Complainant owns, among other registrations for the LANVIN marks, a domestic registration in China since 1997, where the Respondent has its domicile.
According to the Registrar’s verification response, the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on August 3, 2012.
The disputed domain name, as at the date of this decision, leads to a website selling several different models of handbags, all bearing the mark LANVIN. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name bears the famous trademark LANVIN, associated with the words “handbag” and “store”, in a clear attempt to create confusion and mislead the consumers.
The Complainant claims not to have any relationship with the Respondent or has never given the Respondent permission to use its mark or to apply it to any kind of domain name incorporating this mark.
The Complainant also states that the bags offered on the website to which the disputed domain name leads are unauthorized copies of actual Lanvin bags, as well as models that do not exist under the Complainant’s mark. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In this Panel’s view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Regarding the first element of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s evidence suffices to proof its rights in the LANVIN mark which is duly registered in several countries.
The Complainant also produced evidence of the worldwide renown of the LANVIN mark, which has been in the market since 1885.
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name, , reproduces the mark in its entirety and furthermore, the addition of the words “handbag” and “store” which is in this Panel’s view a clear attempt to deviate the market for the original LANVIN mark, intentionally leading the consumers to confusion.
Hence, the Panel finds that the first element is present in this case. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the mark LANVIN is undoubtedly linked to the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name in a large number of countries, but also is used to identify the Complainant’s business and the related goods for more than a hundred years.
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions.
Besides, the Complainant provided enough evidence of the renown of the mark, including in China. Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent should have been aware of the mark and its direct relation to the Complainant.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
The Complainant’s trademark LANVIN is recognized as being a well-known trademark. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in this mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, due to the notoriety.
The website to which the disputed domain name leads also bears the mark LANVIN in the special script which is also registered under the Complainant’s name. Further, the website offers a multitude of handbags that seem to be unauthorized copies of actual Lanvin bags, as well as models that do not exist under the Complainant’s mark.
Based on the above evidences, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusing with the Complainant’s trademark. 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: July 15, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy