The Complainant is The Skullhead Luxembourg, Luxembourg, represented by Atlan & Boksenbaum Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Ji Zhou Chen, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2019. On November 19, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 19, 2019, 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 November 22, 2019 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 November 25, 2019. 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 November 27, 2019. On November 28 and November 30, 2019, a third party contacted the Center regarding the claimed unauthorized use of its contact details in relation to the disputed domain name. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on December 19, 2019. The Center appointed Martin Michaus Romero as the sole panelist in this matter on January 2, 2020. 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 1) The French company The Kooples Production is the exclusive licensee of the Complainant’s trademarks. 2) The Kooples Production creates, manufactures and distributes in France and internationally, under the main trademarks THE KOOPLES, various men’s and women’s ready to wear goods as well as leather goods. 3) It commercializes this product through a wide network of high-end points of sale and the website at “www.thekooples.com” which was registered of August 1, 2007 (duly renew) is operated by it. 4) The Complainant owns several THE KOOPLES trademarks duly registered at international and national level, in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 41, 35. 5) The disputed domain name was registered on November 14, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering discounted THE KOOPLES products and competing products for sale, using photos from the Complainant's official website without its authorization. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states in its Complaint that the Respondent: 1) Registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the trademark THE KOOPLES, without the Complainant’s knowledge or authorization. 2) Has registered the disputed domain name which includes the trademark THE KOOPLES to create confusion among the consumers. 3) Considering the complete reproduction of trademark THE KOOPLES in the disputed domain name, it is likely to intend to confuse potential customers; therefore, it can be inferred that the disputed domain name was selected and used by the Respondent, not for bona fide business purposes, but rather to mislead Internet users. 4) In summary, in this Complaint, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to its trademark THE KOOPLES. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its Decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules: Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 has rights in the trademark THE KOOPLES. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark THE KOOPLES. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark THE KOOPLES in its entirety. The terms “pas cher”, meaning “cheap” in French, do not prevent a finding of confusingly similarity, as the Complainant’s trademark is easily recognizable within the disputed domain name. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.com” can be disregarded for the assessment of the first element of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not received permission or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and therefore has not provided any evidence to demonstrate anything to the contrary. It should be pointed out that nothing in the available record indicates that the Respondent is an individual, business or corporation known by the name “thekooplespascher”. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of good or services, nor for a legitimate or noncommercial fair use that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or owned a trademark or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it is clear to the Panel that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name has been in bad faith. By including the trademark THE KOOPLES in the disputed domain name, the Respondent seeks to intentionally attract Internet users to its website or other online location for commercial gain. With the inclusion of the terms “pas cher” in the disputed domain name Internet users are likely to be led to believe that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant. The Respondent has demonstrated, by registering the disputed domain name that reproduces the Complainant’s name and mark, a vicious intent to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. These activities constitute, in view of the Panel, clear evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The above creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. This also negatively affects the Complainant’s online presence. See paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Martin Michaus Romero
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy