The Complainant is Jeanne Lanvin, France, represented by Hoche Société Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Deborah Thomas, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 24, 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 December 26, 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 January 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 29, 2020. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 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 The Complainant is a French fashion house originally created in Paris in 1885. Since that date it has continuously carried on business under the LANVIN name. The Complainant manufactures and distributes products such as bags, clothes and shoes around the world. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous registered trademarks in respect of the LANVIN word mark, including International trademark number 247646 registered on September 18, 1961 designating a number of territories in Europe as well as Tunisia and Viet Nam, and United States trademark number 576027 registered on June 16, 1953. The Domain Name was registered on January 17, 2019 and at the time of the Complaint resolved to a website prominently displaying the LANVIN trademark and offering for sale what purport to be the Complainant’s products at very low prices. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its LANVIN trademarks, 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 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 its LANVIN trademarks, both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations around the world and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the mark over very many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s LANVIN word mark together with the words “clothing” and “shop”. In the Panel’s view, the addition of these dictionary words does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and 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 Domain Name is being used for a commercial website selling what the Complainant alleges are unauthorized, counterfeit copies of the Complainant’s clothing at low prices. The Respondent has never been licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use its LANVIN trademarks. The Respondent appears to be selling infringing copies of the Complainant’s products. As many UDRP panels have previously found, there can be no rights or legitimate interests in selling counterfeit products. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint to explain its use of the Domain Name or to take any other 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 In light of the use to which the Respondent has put the Domain Name, there is no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the LANVIN mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the mark, both by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant for legitimate purposes related to the Complainant’s activities and to draw in Internet users to offer them unauthorized, apparently counterfeit copies of the Complainant’s products at low prices. The Panel is in no doubt that this 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 Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: February 26, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy