The Complainant is Etablissements Darty Et Fils, France, represented by Cabinet Santarelli, France.
The Respondent is zeng lingyun, China. 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 27, 2019. On December 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 30, 2019, 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 January 6, 2020 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 January 10, 2020. 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 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2020. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 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 company established in 1957 with headquarters in Ivry-sur-Seine. It is a supplier of large and small household appliances and equipment, as well as audio and video apparatus, televisions, videos and computers. It has over 200 stores in France and many others around the world, particularly in Europe. It also promotes and markets products online, particularly at “www.darty.com”. The Complainant’s Group company, Fnac Darty, had turnover of EUR 7.475 billion in 2018. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of many trademarks around the world in respect of the word mark DARTY, including France trademark number 1581492 registered on March 21, 1990, International trademark number 453303 registered on June 5, 1980 designating a number of territories, and International trademark number 907341 registered on February 15, 2006, designating the African Union, China, Tunisia and Turkey. The Domain Name was registered on March 28, 2018 and resolves to a website comprising numerous pornographic images and links to other pornography websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 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 DARTY trademarks, both by virtue of its many 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 DARTY word mark together with the prefix “ww”. In the Panel’s view, the addition of these letters 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 comprises the Complainant’s DARTY mark, with the prefix “ww”, which suggests that the Domain Name was registered for the purposes of what is commonly known as typosquatting, to take advantage of Internet users mistyping the Complainant’s website address, “www.darty.com”. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but for a webpage comprising numerous pornographic images and pay-per-click links to other pornography websites. The Respondent has never been licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use its DARTY trademarks. 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 nature of the Domain Name as indicated above, there is little doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the DARTY 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, with Internet users’ mistyping the address of the Complainant’s online store and/or 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. The association between the Complainant’s DARTY mark and pornographic content also inevitably tarnishes the Complainant’s mark. 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 28, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy