The Complainant is IM Production of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Vittoz, France.
The Respondent is Privacy Protection Service Inc. d/b/a Privacy P c/o ID 10760 of Queensland, Australia / jonathon of Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “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 January 5, 2016, naming Privacy Protection Service Inc. d/b/a Privacy P c/o ID 10760 as the Respondent.
The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar on January 5, 2016. The Registrar replied on January 6, 2016, stating that it had received a copy of the Complaint, that the Domain Name was registered with it, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies to the Domain Name, that the expiry date is October 13, 2016, that a registrar lock had been applied to the Domain Name and would be maintained until its expiry, that the registration agreement was in English, and that the Domain Name was registered on October 13, 2015. However, the Registrar stated that the Respondent as named in the Complaint was not the registrant. The Registrar provided the full details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name, which identified the registrant as “jonathon”.
The Center invited the Complainant to amend the Complaint in the light of the information provided by the Registrar as to the identity of the registrant. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 6, 2016, naming “jonathon” as the Respondent.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 8, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was January 28, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 29, 2016.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 2016. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint together with the Amended Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant carries on a fashion business initiated by its designer and president, Isabel Marant, in 1991. The Complainant’s products are sold around the world under the mark ISABEL MARANT and the Complainant has registered this mark in numerous jurisdictions, including a Community trademark with registration date of May 3, 2000, a United States trademark registered on the principal register on July 18, 2000, and an international registration of June 17, 1999. The Complainant has also registered various domain names containing the string “isabelmarant”.
The Domain Name was registered on October 13, 2015. The Domain Name is directed to a website selling fashion items under the mark ISABEL MARANT at very low prices. A page of the website entitled “about us” says “Welcome to the official Isabel Marant sale online store”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the mark ISABEL MARANT by virtue of its use and registration in numerous countries. The Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The Complainant points out that the Domain Name contains the mark together with the descriptive word “sale”.
The Complainant denies that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant confirms that it has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to register or use the Domain Name and that it is in no way associated or affiliated with the Respondent. The Complainant states that to its knowledge the Respondent has never conducted any legitimate offline businesses under the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered the Domain Name well after the Complainant had established its rights in the mark ISABEL MARANT. According to the Complainant the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, but rather is using it to mislead customers to attract them to its website where it sells counterfeit copies of the Complainant’s products.
As to bad faith, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s website is offering for sale counterfeit copies of the Complainant’s products and is misleading consumers into believing that they are genuine. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to its website for financial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant’s mark, and thereby showed bad faith.
The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s default in failing to file a response. This includes the acceptance of evidence submitted by the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark ISABEL MARANT by virtue of its use and registration of this mark in numerous countries around the world.
The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark, from which it differs only in the omission of the space between the words (which is an inadmissible character in domain names), the addition of the descriptive word “sale” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. Moreover, the Panel has no doubt that a substantial number of consumers would suppose that the Domain Name locates a website where the Complainant’s goods are sold at a discount.
The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence that the Respondent’s website is selling counterfeits of the Complainant’s products. In these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has not used the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
It is evident that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Nor is the Respondent making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent is making illegitimate, commercial use of the Domain Name in bad faith to sell counterfeit products.
In the circumstances, it is clear that there is no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that he has no such rights. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence that, by using the Domain Name for his website, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to this website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ISABEL MARANT mark as to the source sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website and the counterfeit products offered for sale through it.
In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP this constitutes evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. There is no evidence in the file that would displace this presumption. On the contrary, the presumption is reinforced by the dishonest statement on the Respondent’s website: “Welcome to the official Isabel Marant sale online store”.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. All three substantive requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 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 Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: February 19, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy