The Complainant is Golden Goose S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Scarpellini Naj-Oleari & Partners, Italy.
The Respondent is Amy Macdonald of Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “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 May 4, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 5, 2017, 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 proceedings commenced on May 11, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 1, 2017.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 2017. 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 Italian company founded in 2000. It is in the business of apparel and accessories and markets its products under the trademarks GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND and GGDB. It operates a substantial sales network around the world, involving more than 500 retail stores in cities including Milan, Paris, New York City and Hong Kong, China. The Complainant also operates an online store through its website at “”.
The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registrations of its trademarks including International Trademark number 881244 GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND registered on December 12, 2005, Italy trademark number 983654 GOLDEN GOOSE DELUX BRAND registered on November 11, 2005 and International Trademark number 1242358 GGDB registered on July 11, 2014.
The Domain Name was registered on August 5, 2015 and at the time of preparation of the Complaint resolved to a website offering what the Complainant contends to be counterfeit products of the Complainant (the “Website”). The home page of the Website is headed GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND and features a range of GOLDEN GOOSE products at what are expressed to be significantly discounted prices. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND trademark (the “Mark”), both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Mark over a number of years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the distinctive element of the Mark, namely the Complainant’s brand GOLDEN GOOSE, together with the generic term “shops”. In the view of the Panel, the addition of this term does not detract from the confusing similarity of the GOLDEN GOOSE element to the Complainant’s Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a website offering what the Complainant claims to be counterfeit products of the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Website is offering products for sale at what purport to be very substantially discounted prices, which is consistent with the products in question being counterfeit. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Since the Respondent has used the Domain Name for a website selling what purport to be the Complainant’s goods, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The heading of the home page of the Website with the words GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND appears to the Panel to give the misleading impression that the Website is the website of the Complainant. In the absence of any response by the Respondent, the Panel has no reason to doubt that the Respondent is offering counterfeit goods of the Complainant on the Website, particularly given the very substantially discounted prices at which the Website is purporting to sell the goods. In the Panel’s view, the use of a domain name for such activity, clearly with a view to commercial gain, amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy