The Complainant is the Jeanne Lanvin Company of Paris, France, represented by Hoche Societé d'Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Liuliu Liu, of Beijing, 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 February 9, 2015. On February 9, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2015, 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 communication by the Center regarding the request for clarification of the communication of the Complaint, the Complainant sent an email to the Center confirming that on February 9, 2015 the Complaint was sent to the Respondent's email address.
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 17, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 9, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 10, 2015.
The Center appointed Mr. Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 2015. 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 is a high fashion house founded in 1889 in Paris, France by the fashion designer, Jeanne Lanvin.
4.2 The Complainant manufactures, markets and sells high fashion goods such as clothing, shoes, handbags, jewelry, fashionable accessories and luxury goods under the LANVIN trademark and has boutiques worldwide, including in China, Hong Kong, United States of America (New York, Chicago, Malibu, Los Angeles, etc.) and the European Union.
4.3 The Complainant has registered LANVIN as a trademark in various countries.
(a) The earliest registration for the LANVIN trademark was on 3 August 1961 in France.
(b) In China, the LANVIN trademark was registered as follows:
Trademark
Registration Date
Class(es)
LANVIN
9 September 1980
14, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28
LANVIN
28 February 1986
9
LANVIN
28 December 2007
21, 28
(c) The LANVIN trademark is also registered in, amongst others, Israel, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Turkey, United States of America, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Monaco, Austria, Benelux, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Egypt, Spain, Italy, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Portugal, San Marino, Tunisia, Serbia and Montenegro.
4.4 Apart from the registration of LANVIN as a trademark, the Complainant has also registered LANVIN:
(a) as a commercial name for several companies within the Complainant's group of companies, such as LANVIN Asia Pacific Ltd (Hong Kong), LANVIN Japan, LANVIN Taiwan, LANVIN Inc. (in the United States of America), LANVIN Ltd (London), and Jeanne LANVIN Company (France); and
(b) as a domain name, in particular, the official LANVIN website and online store at since 8 June 1996. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant asserts that LANVIN is a well-known trademark. The Complainant contends further that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LANVIN trademark for the
following reasons:
(a) the disputed domain name comprises of the Complainant's LANVIN trademark as its dominant feature.
(b) the inclusion of the top-level domain (gTLD) ".com" is inconsequential when determining similarities between domain names and trademarks.
(c) the addition of the suffix "-china" does not detract from the overall impression formed by the public that the disputed domain name is owned by or related to the Complainant. In fact, the suffix "-china" can be interpreted as a geographical reference to the country China and cause confusion as China is one of the main distribution territories for the Complainant's products.
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 has not adduced any evidence to indicate the Respondent's rights to the disputed domain name.
(b) the Respondent is not, in any way, related to the Complainant's business, is not one of its agents and does not carry out any activity or has any business with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed or authorised the Respondent in any way including to register or to use the disputed domain name.
(c) the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent solely for commercial gain as it resolves to a parking page with click-through links.
(d) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights to the LANVIN trademark at the point of registration of the disputed domain name given that products under the LANVIN trademark have been extensively promoted in China since 1980, 34 years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on 15 December 2014.
5.3 The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered and/or used the domain name in dispute in bad faith and relies on the following:
(a) the Complainant has not found any evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any legitimate rights or interests to the LANVIN trademark including any licenses or authorisations from the Complainant.
(b) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.
(c) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services but is instead seeking to ride and usurp the Complainant's reputation and goodwill in the LANVIN trademark. The disputed domain name will cause confusion and divert Internet users away from the Complainant's official website. 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 interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(c) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied with the evidence adduced by the Complainant to evidence its rights to the LANVIN trademark. The LANVIN trademark has been registered by the Complainant in numerous jurisdictions and has been used extensively on a worldwide basis for a long period of time. Several panels have also regarded the LANVIN as a well-known mark (see Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Yinglang Hua,WIPO Case No. D2013-2009 (); Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Li piaosa,WIPO Case No. D2013-0339 (); Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Ge Muqie,WIPO Case No. D2013-0342 (); Jeanne Lanvin Company v. lin tao,WIPO Case No. D2013-0952 (); Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Jay Lee,WIPO Case No. D2013-0953 (); Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Lannys Tyndali,WIPO Case No. D2013-1140 ( and ); Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Opnqkfe Opnqkfe,WIPO Case No. D2013-1141 ()).
The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the suffix "-china" to the LANVIN trademark in the disputed domain name is simply a geographical reference to the country China and can be understood to mean the Complainant's website for its market in China.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LANVIN trademark for the purposes of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant's assertions have not been rebutted by the Respondent to indicate whether the Respondents have any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. There was also no evidence put forward by the Respondent to indicate that the Respondent is licensed or authorised by the Complainant to use the LANVIN trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with click-through links. In light of the Respondent's failure to rebut the Complainant's assertion, the Panel finds no reason to doubt that the disputed domain name was used solely for commercial gain.
In the circumstances, the Panel cannot find any justification, right or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent to the words comprising the disputed domain name or to the disputed domain name itself. 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. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel agrees with the contention by the Complainant that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's rights to the LANVIN trademark when it registered and started using the disputed domain name.
The factors that were taken into account to arrive at this conclusion include:
(a) the date of registration of the disputed domain name which was on 15 December 2014. This is almost 34 years after the Complainant had registered and used the LANVIN trademark in China from September 9, 1980 and 18 years after the Complainant had registered and used its official website on 8 June 1996.
(b) the notoriety of the trademark through the widespread and long use of the LANVIN trademark by the Complainant at a global level well before the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent.
The Panel cannot find any justification for the registration and use of the disputed domain name in such circumstances except to find that the Respondent is using the domain name in dispute to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.
As such, the Panel finds that bad faith has been demonstrated under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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.
Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin
Sole Panelist
Date: April 1, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy