The Complainant is Breitling SA of Grenchen, Switzerland, represented by B.M.G. Avocats, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Aditya G of Mawhati, Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya, India. 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 February 23, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 26, 2018, 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 March 8, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 28, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 29, 2018.
The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2018. 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 owns the following registrations, in addition to numerous others around the world for the BREITLING trademark:
- International registration no. 613794 for BREITLING & design in class 14, registered on January 7, 1994;
- International registration no. 890749 for BREITLING (word) in class 14, registered on June 1, 2006;
- Indian trademark registration no. 613185 for BREITLING & design in class 14, registered on December 2, 1993;
- Indian trademark registrations nos. 687274, 687275 and 687276 for BREITLING & design in classes 18, 25 and 28, registered on November 17, 1995;
- United States of America (“U.S.”) trademark registration no. 2352162 for BREITLING & design in class 14, registered on May 23, 2000; and
- U.S. trademark registration no. 2964474 for BREITLING (word) in class 14, registered on July 5, 2005.
The Domain Name was registered on November 25, 2017 and resolves to a website that features information about and images of watches. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant manufactures high-end chronographs and watches and related accessories. The Complainant was founded in 1884 by Léon Breitling, and has manufactured and sold BREITLING watches ever since. The Complainant states that its BREITLING brand is especially well-known in the field of technical watches for aviators and pilots. The Complainant owns the domain name , which resolves to its official website “www.”.
The Complainant argues that its extensive reputation in the world of watch making and its international presence have caused the BREITLING brand to become well-known in connection with watches. The Complainant contends that the BREITLING trademark is immediately associated with the Complainant and its know-how as a watchmaker.
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BREITLING trademark, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant states that the Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant and notes that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with a site that features watches. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s actions demonstrate an intention to create confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark.
On December 19, 2017, the Complainant’s authorized representative sent a cease and desist letter via email to the Respondent regarding the Domain Name. The Respondent did not reply. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the following three elements:
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the BREITLING trademark. The addition of the word “prices” in the Domain Name does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark. When a distinctive mark is paired with less distinctive terms, the combination will typically be found to be confusingly similar to the distinctive mark. See, e.g., MasterCard International Incorporated v. Michael J Yanda, Indy Web Productions,WIPO Case No. D2007-1140. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BREITLING mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a respondent can demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating one of the following facts:
(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name at issue in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.
In this case, the Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name; that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name; or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with a website that features information about and images of watches, which the Complainant contends is designed to create confusion with the Complainant. The Respondent has not refuted these allegations. In the Panel’s view, this cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name at issue primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.”
The Complainant has established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Domain Name is being used in connection with a website that features information about and images of watches. The Panel finds that the use of the Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name and in the heading at the top of the page demonstrates an intent by the Respondent to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BREITLING trademark, which presumably results in commercial gain to the Respondent. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name 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.
Michelle Brownlee
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy