The Complainant is Kings Landing Limited of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, represented by Page White & Farrer, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”).
The Respondent is Name Redacted.1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed 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 August 23, 2018. On August 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 24, 2018, 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 September 4, 2018, 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 September 4, 2018.
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 September 10, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 30, 2018. On September 22, 2018, the Center received an email communication from an individual asserting that the disputed domain name had been registered using that person’s contact details without authorization. The Center emailed the Parties on September 25, 2018, notifying them of the Respondent identity issue. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. The Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to Panel Appointment.
The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 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 is the proprietor of inter alia European Union (“EU”) Trademark registration no. 000844001 for the word mark JAEGER, registered for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 18, 23 and 25, with registration date November 19, 1999, and EU Trademark registration no. 000846543 for the figurative mark JAEGER, registered for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 17, 23 and 25, with registration date November 19, 1999.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 21, 2017. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant mainly alleges the following.
The JAEGER mark is a well-established brand in the UK and all over the world. It is currently used in respect of a wide range of clothing and shoes for men and women, as well as accessories such as cuff-links, sunglasses and bags. Consumers can purchase JAEGER goods through the Complainant’s “” website. The Complainant also operates approximately 55 JAEGER retail shops and concessions and approximately 18 outlets throughout the UK and has a store in Ireland. There are also plans to expand the stores globally.
The disputed domain name comprises the words “Jaeger”, “dresses”, “sale” and “.com”. The domain wholly includes the Complainant’s identical JAEGER trademark, which appears at the start of the disputed domain name. The other words of the disputed domain name i.e. “dresses”, “sale” and “.com” are wholly descriptive and/or non-distinctive.
It is clear that the dominant and distinctive element of the disputed domain name is the word JAEGER, which is identical to the Complainant’s earlier registrations for JAEGER and highly similar to the registrations for JAEGER (stylized). The Complainant also refers to the Respondent’s use of JAEGER on the website. In particular, it is noted that the Respondent uses the JAEGER mark in the identical stylized format of the Complainant.
Adding a generic term is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity and does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.
To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the wording “Jaeger”, “Jaegerdresses” or “Jaegerdressessale” or any other potential combination.
No license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to register the disputed domain name.
The Respondent’s operating of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name falsely suggests affiliation with the Complainant due to the inclusion of the identical JAEGER element. The JAEGER mark used on the Respondent’s website is identical to the Complainant’s figurative mark consisting of JAEGER in stylized letters.
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to gain goodwill and commercial advantage from the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent must have been aware that JAEGER is a registered trademark as it has wholly copied the stylized version of the mark currently used by the Complainant.
By using and registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
Internet users, encountering the Respondent’s website, will be confused or deceived into believing that the disputed domain name is operated and/or associated with the Complainant. Indeed, the Complainant is aware of consumers that have already been deceived by the Respondent’s use of JAEGER on the disputed domain name.
Copies of emails have been attached to the Complaint as evidence. It is noted that the website associated with the disputed domain contains a column called “Latest Orders” which purports to list details of recent sales to consumers all over the world. If accurate, the list of “Latest Orders” is further evidence of consumers that have been confused and deceived by the Respondent’s use of JAEGER on “”.
Against this background the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the proprietor of trademark registrations containing the word JAEGER, inter alia the above-mentioned EU trademark registration no. 000844001. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with two words that are descriptive in relation to the goods offered by the Complainant, i.e. “dresses” and “sale” written together. It is well established among UDRP panels that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is not distinguishing. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the first requirement of the Policy is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, a complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not proven otherwise. The Panel therefore finds the requirements of the second element of the Policy fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s registered trademarks predate the disputed domain name and it is clear that the disputed domain name was registered with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. There is no indication from the submitted evidence that there has been information on the website in order to distance it from the Complainant or inform that the website is independent from the Complainant. These circumstances support a finding of bad faith registration. The submitted evidence regarding placed orders which never got received further supports a finding of bad faith use. Against this background the Panel finds that the third requirement of the Policy is fulfilled. 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.
Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: November 6, 2018
1 In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. B / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy