The Complainant is Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft of Triesen, Liechtenstein, represented by LegalBase (Pvt) Limited, Sri Lanka.
The Respondent is li ning of Alabama, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 28, 2014. On May 28, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 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 Complainant 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 2, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 22, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 23, 2014.
The Center appointed Teruo Doi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 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, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Principality of Liechtenstein, with its principal place of business in Triesen, Liechtenstein.
The Complainant is engaged in the business of producing cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones with production facilities in 18 countries, distribution to 42 countries and a presence in more than 120 countries. The Complainant is using the SWAROVSKI marks in connection with crystal jewelry stones and crystalline semi-finished goods for the fashion, jewelry, home accessories, and crystalline semi-finished goods for the fashion, jewelry, home accessories, collectibles, and lighting industries.
The Complainant has registered the SWAROVSKI marks around the world. It has obtained trademark registrations for the SWAROVSKI marks in the United States of America and Japan and international trademark registrations applicable to the USA and Japan.
As the result of substantial time, effort and money spent for international efforts, SWAROVSKI marks have become well-known and famous in the USA and Japan.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 1, 2014. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to an on-line store which sold what was purported to be Swarovski branded products at discounted prices, and which prominently displayed the Complainant's SWAROVSKI trademark and logo. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SWAROVSKI marks. Due to its substantial efforts of control and promotion, SWAROVSKI marks have become famous and well-known internationally, and the disputed domain name is "a blatant infringement of the SWAROVSKI® Marks and no bona fide use was being made of the Infringing Domain Name". The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that "(t)his is clear evidence that the Respondent was trying to pass itself off as Swarovski and was exploiting the goodwill associated with the SWAROVSKI ® Marks in order to obtain commercial gain." Therefore, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove that each of the following elements exists in seeking the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(i) The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint within the stipulated time and, as such, does not contest the facts asserted by the Complainant in the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of a set of three words: "jp", "swarovski" and "outlet". By looking at this disputed domain name, one quickly notice that word "swarovski" placed after "jp" and before a generic word "outlet" refers to the Complainant.
The word "Swarovski" is the dominant part of the disputed domain name. The first word "jp" stands for the country name of Japan in an abbreviated form. Such a disputed domain name is misleading Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is clear from the facts described in the Complaint that the Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent has not rebutted.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that this case falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet Users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Teruo Doi
Sole Panelist
Date: July 22, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy