The Complainant is DKH Retail Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented internally.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Domain Is For Sale At www.dan.com ----, Cayman Islands, UK. 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 16, 2021 in relation to three domain names, including the Domain Name. On February 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 18, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name and the other two domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 14, 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 amended Complaint including only the Domain Name, on April 16, 2021. 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 April 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 9, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 10, 2021. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns the mark SUPERDRY registered, inter alia, in the European Union (“EU”) for clothing, trade mark registration no. 3528403 since June 22, 2005. The Complainant owns the mark SUPERDRY DETROIT STANDARD registered, inter alia, in the UK for clothing, trade mark registration no. UK00003558530 since April 9, 2021. The Domain Name was registered on November 26, 2020 and resolves to a website where the Domain Name is offered for sale generally for USD 990. The Domain Name was registered six days after the Complainant applied to register SUPERDRY DETROIT STANDARD as UK and EU trade marks on November 20, 2020 and three days after the Complainant applied to register the same mark in the United States of America (“USA”) on November 23, 2020. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant owns the mark SUPERDRY registered, inter alia, in the EU for clothing trade mark registration no. 3528403 since 2005. The Complainant owns the mark SUPERDRY DETROIT STANDARD registered, inter alia, in the UK for clothing, trade mark registration no. UK00003558530 since April 9, 2021. The Domain Name registered on November 26, 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SUPERDRY mark merely adding the term “Detroit standard” and adding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which does not prevent said confusing similarity. The Domain Name is also identical for the purposes of the Policy to the Complainant’s SUPERDRY DETROIT STANDARD mark merely adding the gTLD “.com”. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it or authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been offered for sale generally for USD 990. The Domain Name was registered six days after the Complainant applied to register SUPERDRY DETROIT STANDARD as UK and EU trade marks on November 20, 2020 and three days after the Complainant applied to register the same mark in the USA on November 23, 2020. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but registration and use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s SUPERDRY mark, the dictionary words “Detroit standard” and the gTLD “.com”. The addition of the dictionary words “Detroit” and “standard” does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s SUPERDRY mark, which is still recognisable in the Domain Name. The gTLD “.com” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark as the “.com” element of the Domain Name is merely functional in this case and, in such a context traditionally disregarded for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with the SUPERDRY mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Noting the facts and arguments set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The site attached to the Domain Name offers the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark for sale for USD 990, a sum in excess of the costs of registration, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s distinctive mark has been offered for sale for profit for USD 990, a sum in excess of out of pocket costs relating to the Domain Name. The fact that the Domain Name was registered merely days after the Complainant applied for a trade mark in the UK, EU, and USA for the mark SUPERDRY DETROIT STANDARD demonstrates opportunistic bad faith on the part of the Respondent. As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith primarily for the purposes of sale for profit and has satisfied the third limb 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 Domain Name Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 21, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy