ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Jacquemus SAS v. TALHA JABBAR Case No. D2022-3252 1. The Parties The Complainant is Jacquemus SAS, France, represented by DBK Law Firm, France. The Respondent is TALHA JABBAR, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with 123-Reg Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 1, 2022. On September 1, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 2, 2022, 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. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 7, 2022, 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 September 8, 2022. 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 September 16, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 6, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 7, 2022. The Center appointed Marilena Comănescu as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 2022. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 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 2013, which manufactures and markets clothing and fashion accessories under the trademark JACQUEMUS. Products branded JACQUEMUS are sold in 50 different countries around the world. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for JACQUEMUS, such as the following: - the International Trademark Registration No. 1211398 registered on February 5, 2014, covering goods in the International Classes 9, 18, 25; and - the European Union Trademark Registration No. 018080381, filed on June 11, 2019 and registered on October 18, 2019, covering goods in the International Classes 14, 24 and 28. Since 2010, the Complainant holds and uses the domain name in order to promote its activity and to sell its goods. The disputed domain name was registered on May 29, 2022, and, at the time of filing the Complaint it was used in connection with a commercial website selling various lamps. Before the present procedure, according to the evidence provided as Annex 8 to the Complaint, the disputed domain name was used in connection with a commercial website promoting and selling various shoes. On July 1, 2022, the Complainant send a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent in relation to the disputed domain name. The letter remained unanswered. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark JACQUEMUS with the last letter "s" substituted with an "z", the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of the absence of a Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; page 3 (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the JACQUEMUS trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark with the last letter "s" changed with an "z". However, such alteration does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant's trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Numerous UDRP panels have considered that a domain name consisting of a mispelling of the complainant's trademark (i.e., typosquatting) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") (e.g., ".com", ".info", ".org") may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark JACQUEMUS, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that it has given no license or other right to use its trademark to the Respondent, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate non-commercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services. Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions to advance a claim to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the records before the Panel, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a commercial website, promoting various goods. UDRP panels have constantly found that the use of a domain name to direct Internet users to competing products would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests. See section 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Noting the global reputation of the Complainant's trademark that is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, the Panel finds it is the case in the present proceeding. For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is established, and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has been operating its business since 2013, its trademark JACQUEMUS is highly distinctive and has reputation worldwide in the fashion industry. See also Jacquemus SAS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245862480 / Jacob Inch, WIPO Case No. D2019-3144; and Jacquemus SAS v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2022-1396. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name, reproducing the Complainant's trademark with an obvious alteration, resolved to a commercial website selling lighting articles, and before the dispute to sell footwear. The Complainant is also manufacturing and selling shoes and furniture articles. From the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant, its business and trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt "to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] website 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 [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] website or location" is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent is using without permission the Complainant's well-known trademark in order to get traffic on its web portal and to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created for the Internet users with regard to a potential connection with the Complainant. This impression is created particularly by the incorporation of the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name, the content on the website provided thereunder, which promotes goods identical to those provided by the Complainant, and the lack of any disclaimer on this website. The Respondent failed to provide any argument in its favor in response to the Complainant's cease-anddesist letter and present Complaint. The Complainant's mark is distinctive and has gained a reputation worldwide in its area of activity. From the documents before it, the Panel cannot find any conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain name. Having in view the other circumstances of this case, such facts constitute evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, it was consistently found by previous UDRP panels that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a third party's famous or widely-known trademark constitutes, by itself, a presumption of bad faith registration for the purpose of Policy. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: October 21, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy