The Complainant is Goyard St-Honoré of Paris, France, represented by Lexington, France.
The Respondent is Su Ping of Hong Kong, 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 February 14, 2014. On February 14, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 2014, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 17, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 18, 2014.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 2014. 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 a French luxury goods house, operating since 1853 under the trade name and trademark GOYARD which is the family name of its founder. Goyard St-Honoré is a luxury trunk maker which designs, manufactures and markets its goods ‒ mainly hand bags, wallets, purses, luggage, trunks, etc. ‒ all over the world. The website of the Complainant is “”.
The Complainant has registered the trade mark GOYARD in many countries and territories of the world in class 18 and various other classes. In particular, the Complainant has registrations for GOYARD in Hong Kong, China and the Mainland of China.
The Respondent is an individual based with a purported address in Hong Kong, China. (The address given is not in the format of any address known to this Panel in Hong Kong, China; and the Written Notice sent by courier by the Center to its address was not deliverable). The disputed domain name was registered on December 8, 2013.
The disputed domain name resolves to a page where the words “GOYARD Paris” appears at the top of the page and leather goods that look alike to the Complainant’s genuine goods are offered for sale. The web page purports to be a genuine Goyard web page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions are set out below.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name consists of the word “sacs” and the trademark GOYARD. The first word, “sacs”, is a French word meaning “bags”. The disputed domain name is therefore made up of a generic discriptive word and the Complainant’s trademark and is thereby confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is not known by the name Goyard. It has received no consent or license from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith with the intention of attracting Internet users to the website and thereby make money by selling look alike products. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds that this is a clear case of cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel agrees fully with the Complainant’s arguments and accordingly will make on a short decision. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the Complainant’s registered trademark GOYARD and the generic word “sacs” (meaning “bags” in French). It is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark GOYARD.
Paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the “WIPO Overview 2.0”), sets out the test for determining confusing similarity. Paragraph 1.2 provides (in part):
“The threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms … typically being regarded as insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion..”
The first element of the Policy is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Clearly, in the Panel’s opinion, 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 Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is made out. C. 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 within 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 use of the website under the disputed domain name to sell look alike products is clearly designed for commercial gain. 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
Date: March 31, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy