The Complainant is HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. of Metzingen, Germany, represented by LDS Lazewski Depo & Partners, Poland.
The Respondent is Howard of El Cajon, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 26, 2015. On February 26, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 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.
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 March 4, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 24, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 25, 2015.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 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.
The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent". Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a Response from the Respondent.
The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for HUGO BOSS, a worldwide well-known leading brand in the luxury segment of the fashion field, used by companies of the Hugo Boss Group, their licensees, and authorized distributors. The trademark HUGO BOSS is registered in many countries, including Poland, the country referred to in the website at the disputed domain name.
Among the trademark registrations for HUGO BOSS owned by the Complainant there are:
- Community Trademark Registration No. 000049254, registered on March 26, 2008;
- International Trademark Registration No. 765707, registered on June 1, 2001, designating Poland among other countries.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 29, 2014. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website where Hugo Boss products are offered for sale. According to the Complainant, these products have been verified as counterfeit. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark HUGO BOSS.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorised by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the concerned website, nor is the Respondent offering bona fide goods for sale.
The Complainant claims that the website at the disputed domain name offers for sale counterfeit products bearing the Complainant's trademark HUGO BOSS.
In order to provide evidence of the above, the Complainant bought products bearing the trademark HUGO BOSS from the website at the disputed domain name, finding them of very poor quality and enclosing images of them with explanation in the Complaint. As further evidence, the Complainant annexed to the Complaint a document regarding a criminal proceeding for fraud arising out of sales made from the website at the disputed domain name in December 2014.
The Complainant therefore submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, since it was registered with the only purpose to disrupt the business of the Complainant and attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant's trademark. B. Respondent
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences by the panel, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy,WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL INTERNATIONAL PLC v. MARK FREEMAN,WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; ALTAVISTA COMPANY v. GRANDTOTAL FINANCES LIMITED et. al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0288). 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark HUGO BOSS both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark HUGO BOSS.
Regarding the addition of the generic word "polska" (meaning Poland in the Polish language), the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of generic or geographic terms to a domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; and America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the word "polska" does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix, in this case ".com", may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. V,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint and as set out above has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
Should the products sold on the website to which the disputed domain name is redirecting Internet users be genuine products, legitimately acquired by the Respondent, the question that would arise is whether the Respondent would therefore have a legitimate interest in using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark in circumstances that are likely to give rise to initial interest confusion.
According to the current state of UDRP panel decisions in relation to the issue of resellers as summarized in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 2.0"):
"A reseller can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if the use fits certain requirements. These requirements include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods and the site accurately disclosing the registrant's relationship with the trademark owner. The respondent must also not try to corner the market in domain names that reflect the trademark."
This summary is mainly based on the UDRP decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
On the other hand, should the products offered for sale on the website to which the disputed domain name is redirecting Internet users be counterfeit products, that would be clear evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In the present case, the Panel is of the opinion that the evidence provided by the Complainant is sufficient to support the allegation of counterfeiting, establishing a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to rebut or deny this allegation.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden in establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that "for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] web site or location."
As regards the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant's trademark HUGO BOSS in the field of fashion is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent knew that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. This is also confirmed by the fact that the content of the website to which the disputed domain name was redirecting the Internet users consisted of advertising for the sale of various purported Complainant's products.
The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark HUGO BOSS in order to sell counterfeit products bearing the Complainant's trademark HUGO BOSS, an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant's business.
The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant's business, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 7. Decision
For all 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.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: April 23, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy