Complainant is IM Production of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Vittoz, France.
Respondent is Yan Si of Haerbing, 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 September 15, 2015. On September 15, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 15, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Registrant's 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on October 19, 2015.
The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on October 27, 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
Complainant has rights in the registered trademark ISABEL MARANT, dating back to 1998. This mark is registered in many countries around the world and it is well known, including in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 29, 2015, well after Complainant registered its mark.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to point to a website providing counterfeit versions of Complainant's products.
The website at the disputed domain name displays Complainant's mark. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a French fashion company that owns and uses the ISABEL MARANT trademarks for shoes, ready to wear, jewelry and couture collections. The mark has been registered in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including China and Hong Kong, China dating back to 1998.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because it combines the mark with the number "2015" which corresponds to the year 2015. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that it has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
On the contrary, says Complainant, the disputed domain name is used to misleadingly attract Internet users to a website that offers for sale counterfeit imitations of Complainant's products.
According to Complainant, Respondent's website encourages consumers to believe that it is connected to Complainant's official web site, but this is not the case. Respondent deliberately registered and used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to his website for financial gain, by creating confusion with Complainant's mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, because it contains the mark and merely adds the common term "2015" to form the disputed domain name. See PACCAR, Inc. v. Enyart Associates and T, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2000-0289; see also Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman,WIPO Case No. D2000-0253; Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Laura E Torres,WIPO Case No. D2015-0771; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Paulo Henrique Petrucci,WIPO Case No. D2013-1587.
The Panel holds that Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which offers for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant's products. The Panel holds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to host a website selling counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii) (see Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles,WIPO Case No. D2004-0750; see also Farouk Systems, Inc. v. QYM,WIPO Case No. D2009-1572).
Complainant presents evidence showing that the website to which the disputed domain resolves uses Complainant's mark in order to create the appearance that the disputed domain name is affiliated with Complainant's business. The Panel holds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as associated with Complainant is further evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) (see Red Bull GmbH v. Maxwell Arnold,WIPO Case No. D2014-1589; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Open Business Directory Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2013-1444).
Furthermore, where a party has registered and used a domain name in bad faith (see the discussion below), that party cannot be found to have made a bona fide offering of goods and services, see The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Azra Khan,WIPO Case No. D2002-0701; see also AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian,WIPO Case No. D2000-0937.
The Panel holds that Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As previously mentioned, Complainant presents evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant's affiliation with the site and offers for sale counterfeit replicas of Complainant's goods. Complainant also presents evidence showing that the website at the disputed domain name displays Complainant's mark in an attempt to sell counterfeit goods. The Panel holds that Respondent profits from the sale of these goods. The Panel holds that Respondent's attempt to gain commercially from the confusion among Internet users constitutes bad faith use and registration under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Prada S.A. v. Domains For Life,WIPO Case No. D2004-1019; see also Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin,WIPO Case No. D2002-0946; AB Electrolux v. Pablo Rodriguez Guirao,WIPO Case No. D2011-0729.
The Panel holds that Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof for this element 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 Complainant.
Richard Hill
Sole Panelist
Date: October 28, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy