The Complainant is STYLIGHT GMBH of Munich, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.
The Respondent is Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Jillian Jones of San Diego, California, United States of America ("United States"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 5, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 5, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 6, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 11, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 proceedings commenced on April 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 3, 2016.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 10, 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 was established in 2008 and provides an online platform in 15 countries worldwide, offering inter alia fashion from over 100 online shops.
The Complainant owns several STYLIGHT trademarks, including the Community Trademark Registration No. 7416051 (registered on June 16, 2009), the International Registration No. 1011334 (registered on May 14, 2009), and the United States trademark registration No. 3910299 (registered on January 25, 2011).
The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2016 and is used to forward Internet users to the Complainant's website at "". 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends the following:
The trademark STYLIGHT is highly distinctive and, to the best of the Complainant's knowledge, solely connected to the Complainant and not used in commerce by any third party. Around six million visitors around the globe currently use the Complainant's different platforms.
The Respondent seems to be a cybersquatter who deliberately targets third parties with its domain registrations. Besides the disputed domain name, the Respondent is the registered owner of a total of at least 190 domain names, including a large number of domain names corresponding to third parties' products.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the STYLIGHT marks. The addition of the generic term "-de", which corresponds to the top level domain identifier of one of the Complainant's primary domain names is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks and has not permitted the Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark STYLIGHT. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Finally, there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent trades under the disputed domain name or the name "Stylight", or is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name "Stylight".
The fact that the Respondent forwards the disputed domain name to the Complainant's website "" clearly shows that the Respondent is deliberately targeting the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent places cookies on the computers of the users typing the disputed domain name into their browser. Thereby, the Respondent is in all likelihood trying to gain revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant's website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's trademark STYLIGHT and the addition "-de", followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to the consensus view of UDRP panels, the addition of geographical terms such as "de" (which corresponds to the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") of Germany) to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.9).
The gTLD ".com" may further be disregarded when assessing identity or confusing similarity.
The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Based on the Complainant's credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The use of the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to the Complainant's website "". .While such use may not fit perfectly within any of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, this paragraph is expressly "without limitation". The unauthorized registration of a domain name, containing a clearly identifiable mark – by a party with no connection to the mark – is, in the circumstances of this case (including the Respondent's default), sufficiently redolent of bad faith.
In addition, the Respondent appears to, possibly, have engaged in cybersquatting pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy by registering at least 190 domain names, including a large number of domain names corresponding to third parties' products.
Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: May 24, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy