Complainant is Turlen Holding SA of Les Breuleux, Switzerland, represented by Soprintel S.A., Switzerland.
Respondent is San Lintun of Shiban, Yulian, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 13, 2016. On April 13, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 11, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on May 12, 2016.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on May 23, 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
Complainant launched the trademark RICHARD MILLE in 2001, which is registered in more than 160 countries, including International trademark No. 732812, registered on March 31, 2000; and Swiss trademark No. P-467031, registered on November 25, 1999, among others.
Complainant is a company registered to the Commercial Register of the Canton of Jura, Switzerland and Mr. Richard Mille is one of the founders of it. It is the owner of all the intellectual property rights on RICHARD MILLE watches and other goods.
Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names incorporating the trademark RICHARD MILLE, such as , , , and so forth.
The trademark RICHARD MILLE is widely known in the horological field.
The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on December 21, 2015, and is being used to offer unauthorized replicas of RICHARD MILLE watches. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant's trademark enjoys international reputation and it is recognized by the public in the horological field.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark RICHARD MILLE. In particular, it is identical to Complainant's trademark, except for the addition of the generic term "replica".
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent and has never authorized or licensed it to use the RICHARD MILLE mark. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by this trademark.
Respondent has clearly used the disputed domain name and Complainant's trademarks for commercial use since the website at the disputed domain name is active and offers for sale replicas of RICHARD MILLE watches.
It is clear that Respondent had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering and using the disputed domain name, as it differs only by the addition of a generic term to Complainant's distinctive trademark, and is being used to target Complainants' customers. See The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113 (, among others). B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark or service mark; and
(ii) 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 Complainant has established rights in its trademark RICHARD MILLE.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark, except for the addition of the generic term "replica". It has been decided by other UDRP panels that the addition of a generic term does not remove the confusing similarity. On the contrary, the addition of the word "replica" may add to the confusion with Complainant's trademark. See Cartier International A.G. v. Chong James,WIPO Case No. D2015-0404 ().
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established element 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could have demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that there is no evidence that Respondent either used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the offering of unauthorized replicas of Complainant's watches does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purpose of the Policy.
The Panel also finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to divert consumers.
The Panel concludes that Complainant and Respondent have no relationship that would give rise to a license or other rights by which Respondent could own or use a domain name incorporating Complainant's trademark. See Allianz, Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros S.A., v. John Michael,WIPO Case No. D2009-0942 ().
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established element 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name with Complainant's mark in mind, which reproduces Complainant's famous trademark RICHARD MILLE. The Panel notes that Complainant had long been using the RICHARD MILLE trademark when the disputed domain name was registered. Respondent would evidently have been aware of the notoriety of Complainant's mark based on Respondent's use of the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the RICHARD MILLE trademark.
Complainant's allegations of bad faith were not contested since Respondent did not reply the Complaint.
The Panel finds that Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith, having intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. The Panel further finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is illegitimate as the website at the disputed domain name offers replicas of RICHARD MILLE watches. See Schneider Electric SA v. Ningbo Wecans Network Technology Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2004-0554 ().
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, satisfying the third element of the paragraph 4(a) 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.
Eduardo Machado
Sole Panelist
Date: June 6, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy