The Complainant is The Net-A-Porter Group Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Greg Wright, 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 February 15, 2021. On February 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 16, 2021, 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 February 18, 2021, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 19, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 February 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2021. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2021. 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. The invitation to the Complainant to file an amendment to the Complaint stemmed from the fact that the Domain Name was registered in the name of a privacy service. In response to the Center’s registrar verification request, the Registrar disclosed the name and address of the entity in whose name the Domain Name is currently registered. The amended Complaint names Greg Wright, the underlying registrant, as the Respondent. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an online fashion retailer trading under the name, “Net-a-Porter”. It is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations covering its name, including by way of example European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 0969606 NET-A-PORTER (word mark) registered on June 11, 2008 in class 35 for a variety of retail services. The Complainant’s website is connected to the Complainant’s The Domain Name was registered on September 11, 2020. The website to which the Domain Name redirects is at “www.eandejewellery.com”, a website offering for sale rings, earrings, necklaces, bracelets and the like. An “e&e” logo features at the top of the homepage. The “About Us” page informs that “Our e&e journey first began in 2009 with one clear vision in mind: To provide handmade jewellery to customers all around the world …” On November 5, 2020 the Complainant’s representative sent an email headed “Urgent Action Needed” to an email address featuring the domain name, Noting that the Registrar has a name very different from “Acquia”, the Panel has visited the website connected to the domain name, The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NET-A-PORTER trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name comprises “www” and the Complainant’s NET-A-PORTER registered trade mark separated by a hyphen, followed by the generic “.com” Top Level Domain identifier. Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage: “While each case is judged on its own merits, 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.” The Complainant’s NET-A-PORTER registered trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent, has not authorized the use of its NET-A-PORTER trade mark by the Respondent and has no connection with the “e&e” website to which the Domain Name redirects. The Complainant contends that this unauthorized use of its NET-A-PORTER trade mark to connect to a website selling jewelry in competition with the Complainant’s jewelry cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy, in other words a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has chosen not to answer. The Panel cannot conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent can be said to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel has no choice but to conclude that the Respondent registered the Domain Name, knowing it to represent a near replication of the Complainant’s web address, for the purpose for which he is using it, namely to connect it to a website selling product competing with product sold by the Complainant. The nature of the Domain Name is such that Internet users visiting the Respondent’s website will be doing so in the mistaken belief that they are visiting a website of or authorized by the Complainant. While they are likely to realize that the website is not connected with the Complainant, they are faced with the opportunity of buying jewelry which they would not otherwise have come across, an opportunity for commercial gain for the owners of the “e&e” website. There is nothing before the Panel to indicate the nature of any connection that the Respondent may have with the owners of the “e&e” website to which the Domain Name redirects, but the Panel regards it as probable that the Respondent will derive some commercial gain. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances, which if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Complainant relies upon sub-paragraph (iv), which provides: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. For completeness, the Panel notes that the address provided by the Respondent to the Registrar is a false address. The publicly available Royal Mail postcode finder recognizes neither the road nor the postcode. The provision of false contact details confirms, if confirmation were needed, that the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name was made 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, Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy