The Complainant is BA&SH, France, represented by Cabinet Bouchara, France.
The Respondent is Steven Braddy, United States of America. 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 July 10, 2019. On July 10, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 11, 2019, 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 July 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 1, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2019.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on August 9, 2019. 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 BA&SH, a French société par actions simplifiée (“SAS”), registered in Paris and doing business internationally in the field of fashion.
The Complainant is the owner of the BA&SH trademark (the “BA&SH Mark”) and company name, and owns trademark registrations granted worldwide for the BA&SH Mark, including the French Registration No. 3444110, registered on August 1, 2006. The Complainant has been using the BA&SH Mark since then.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2019 and resolves to a French language webpage that is a mockup of the Complainant’s webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the BA&SH Mark, which is an object of a considerable number of registrations worldwide. Proof of these allegations was presented as Annexes 4 to 9 to the Complaint. Due to the Complainant’s operations, the BA&SH Mark has acquired international recognition and is necessarily linked to the Complainant.
The BA&SH Mark is associated with the Complainant’s core business. The Complainant enjoys high reputation for its products and brand recognition.
Further, as stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the BA&SH Mark predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BA&SH Mark.
The disputed domain name contains the BA&SH Mark in association with the term “robe” – which is French for “dress” – as well as the country code “fr”. The disputed domain name contains the BA&SH Mark in its entirety – since the ampersand sign “&” is not a valid one for a domain name, it is either substituted by “e” or simply omitted, which is the case here.
On the other hand, the word “robe” can be considered as suggestive, as it refers to women’s apparel – and the Complainant is widely known exactly for the women’s apparel, which includes dresses (or “robes”). On the other hand, the addition of the country code “fr” can be seen as a clear intention to link the disputed domain name to France, country where the Complainant is based.
The disputed domain name directs to a webpage that reproduces the Complainant’s BA&SH Mark, as well as several products from the Complainant (or copies), that are offered for sale.
The Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name intentionally mislead Internet users, and 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
The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the 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 disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the BA&SH Mark, as the latter is entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name with the addition of the term “robe” and the country code “fr”.
The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the BA&SH Mark in jurisdictions throughout the world, by presenting international trademark registrations.
The use of the BA&SH Mark with the addition of the terms “robe” and “fr” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Given the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirements under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is clear evidence that the BA&SH Mark is registered in the Complainant’s name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant’s activities, and that the Complainant has not licensed this trademark to the Respondent. Hence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case.
It has also been shown that the Respondent is making questionable use of the disputed domain name, redirecting it to a webpage that reproduces the Complainant’s BA&SH Mark, as well as several products from the Complainant (or copies), that are offered for sale.
Hence, the Panel understands that the Respondent should have been aware of the mark and its direct relation to the Complainant.
The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the circumstances of this case, the facts evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant’s business, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for unlawful purposes. The Respondent’s website that reproduces the Complainant’s BA&SH Mark, as well as several products from the Complainant further shows that it is attempting to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant, when it is not.
In addition, the suffix “fr”, an abbreviation of the country name “France”, in a clear reference to the major market for the original products, intentionally leads the consumers to confusion. Moreover, the term “robe” in the disputed domain name suggests the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s business.
All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: August 23, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy