The Complainant is INTERPARFUMS SUISSE SARL, Switzerland, internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 30, 2020, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 9, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint and 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 April 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 11, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2020. The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 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 performs its activity in the perfume business worldwide. The Complainant is the exclusive owner of registered trademarks consisting of the word LANVIN in various jurisdictions throughout the world (acquired from its predecessors in title), including the following: - the International Trademark for the word LANVIN with registration number 352756 registered as of January 24, 1969; - the French Trademark for the word LANVIN with registration number 1328275 registered as of October 25, 1985; - the European Union trademark for the word LANVIN with registration number 017911434 registered as of October 18, 2018. The disputed domain name was registered on February 22, 2020, and at the date of the decision leads to an inactive website displaying a “website coming soon!” message. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks as the additional word “perfume” in the disputed domain name designates the products covered and protected under the trademark LANVIN therefore its presence is increasing the risk of confusion. The Complainant contends it has never granted any license or authorization of use to the Respondent and the disputed domain name is not in use, therefore, the Respondent could not show any evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further shows that LANVIN is a famous trademark for perfumes worldwide due to its intensive and long use, and the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s predecessor in title is a French fashion and perfume company which has been performing its activity throughout the world since 1889 and the first LANVIN fragrance was composed in 1927. In addition, the Complainant contends that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent is clearly using its knowledge of the trademark LANVIN and the reputation of LANVIN in order to mislead the public into thinking the disputed domain name is owned by the Complainant. Moreover, the website is inactive, which shows no intention to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide activity. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the fact that no Response has been filed, the Panel shall consider the issues present in the case based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant. “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”, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each 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; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed. Given the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved its rights over the LANVIN trademark. As regards the question of identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, it requires a comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademarks in which the Complainant holds rights. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “this test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name”. Also, according to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”. Here the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s LANVIN trademark in addition to the dictionary term “perfume” and a hyphen. This addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark, as similarly held in Interparfums Suisse Sàrl v. Rex Paulson,WIPO Case No. D2020-0723. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, despite the addition of other words to such marks. The addition of an additional term (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, if found by the Panel, may demonstrate the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, which states: “[…] where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” In the present case, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that it holds rights over the trademark LANVIN and claims that the Respondent has no legitimate reason to acquire and use the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Also, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. By not replying to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel gives credence to the Complainant’s affirmation that no license or authorization was ever given for the use of the trademark LANVIN in the disputed domain name. With the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith. According to the unrebutted assertions of the Complainant, its LANVIN trademark has been widely used in commerce well before the registration of the disputed domain name in February 2020. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and the dictionary term “perfume” (a descriptive term for the goods provided by the Complainant under the LANVIN Mark) and a hyphen, in addition to the relevant gTLD. Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark LANVIN, with an intention to create a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark LANVIN of the Complainant. See Interparfums Suisse Sàrl v. Private Registration, Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2020-0771; Interparfums Suisse Sàrl v. Rex Paulson, supra. Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that non-use of a domain name, including a blank or “coming soon” page does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Among the factors typically considered by UDRP panels to be relevant are “(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”. See Benalla Rural City Council v. Roy Turner,WIPO Case No. D2017-2331. The Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not in the circumstances of this case prevent a finding of bad faith. There is no evidence in the record of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s LANVIN trademark has been extensively used by the Complainant in various countries in relation to perfumes business and has acquired reputation. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s reputed trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and has failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. Based on the evidence and circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to use in bad faith. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: June 11, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy