The Complainant is J. Choo Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by A. A. Thornton & Co., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is panluzhong of Shaoxing, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with 1API GmbH (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 10, 2016. On February 10, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 11, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on February 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 4, 2016.
The Center appointed William F Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on March 7, 2016. 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 is an internationally known company engaged in the sale of luxury fashion, most notably women's and men's footwear, handbags, and other fashion items and accoutrement through over 170 JIMMY CHOO retail stores. The Complainant owns over 100 trademark registrations in countries around the world dating back to 2001 for the mark JIMMY CHOO (the "Mark"). The Complainant owns and operates the website "" in addition to numerous other websites incorporating the Mark such as, for example, "", "", and "".
The disputed domain names and were registered, respectively, on December 29, 2014 and July 26, 2012. The disputed domain names have resolved to websites offering women's footwear for sale, including those of the Complainant's competitors. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's mark JIMMY CHOO with slight and insignificant modifications rendering the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and the Mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark. The addition of hyphens between "jimmy" and "choo", the addition of the characters "utletsale" as a suffix, and omitting the space character between "jimmy" and "choo" are immaterial for the purposes of a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. v. HarperStephens,WIPO Case No. D2000-1254 (transferring over one 100 domain names incorporating "harrypotter"). Additionally, the Panel notes that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") designation may be disregarded for the purpose of this proceeding. Statoil ASA ("Statoil") v. Cameron Jackson,WIPO Case No. D2015-2226.
The Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain names. The Complainant has formally disavowed any authorization to the Respondent to use the Mark or to register the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that the Respondent is operating any bona fide business in connection with the disputed domain names or the Mark. Further, the Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain names.
The use of the Mark in the disputed domain names to offer the Complainant's competitor's goods for sale does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. See Oki Data America, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
The Panel finds the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Complainant has met the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant's mark is internationally renowned and the products sold on the Respondent's websites are similar to the Complainant's products and offered at a fraction of the price. No other conclusion can be derived from the evidence presented except that the Respondent intended to trade on the Complainant's brand and reputation. The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113 (transferring , , , , and ).
This conclusion is buttressed by a search of domain names owned by the email address association with the Respondent. The Respondent appears to own over 100 domain names incorporating internationally
well-known third-party commercial brands.
It further appears that since the institution of this proceeding, the Respondent has changed the content of its websites utilizing the disputed domain names. However, in these circumstances, the mere alteration, or change in character, of website content does nothing to change the Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Thus the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met. 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
William F Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: March 20, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy