ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Forte_forte S.r.l. v. Dianhui Xue Case No. D2022-3348 1. The Parties Complainant is Forte_forte S.r.l., Italy, represented by Studio Scarpellini, Italy. Respondent is Dianhui Xue, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 8, 2022. On September 9, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 Respondent of Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 19, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 9, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on October 11, 2022. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 2022. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is an apparel and accessories company, marketing its products under inter alia the trademark FORTEFORTE. Complainant was founded in 2002 by Giada and Paolo Forte and currently enjoys, per Complaint, international recognition. Complainant operates on various sales networks, including prestigious retail stores around the world and has a strong presence online, through social networks such as Facebook and Instagram and its main website at "www.forte-forte.com", which generates, per Complaint, significant revenues through its e-shop. Complainant owns several trademark registrations for FORTE FORTE including: - the International trademark registration No. 893915 FORTE FORTE (figurative), registered on March 20, 2006, for goods in international classes 14, 18, 25; and - the European Union trademark registration No. 009824525 FORTE FORTE (figurative), filed on March 21, 2011 and registered on August 30, 2011, for goods and services in international classes 3, 9 and 35. The Domain Name was registered on December 3, 2021 and leads to a website mimicking that of Complainant (the Website) with no company name or clear contact information on it and offering, per Complaint, counterfeit goods under Complainant's trademark. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) 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 Domain Name incorporates Complainant's FORTE FORTE trademark in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525). The addition of the word "outlet" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the FORTE FORTE trademark remains clearly recognizable within the Domain Name (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.8). page 3 The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FORTE FORTE trademark. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use, or has not used the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name is used to host the Website to impersonate Complainant and attempt to mislead Internet users into thinking that the services purportedly offered on the Website originate from Complainant. Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods nor a right or legitimate interest of Respondent (Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine, WIPO Case No. D2015-0502). The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, "in particular but without limitation", are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in "bad faith": (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or page 4 (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the FORTE FORTE trademark had been widely used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name registration and enjoyed reputation in the relevant business sector (Merryvale Limited v. Sg Group, WIPO Case No. D2020-3008), the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). Respondent should have known about Complainant's rights, as such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search and also due to Complainant's online presence (see Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC., WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462). Furthermore, the content of the Website gives the impression that it originates from Complainant, prominently displaying FORTE FORTE signs on the Website and mimicking the website of Complainant, thereby giving the false impression that the Website emanates from Complainant and is its main website. This further supports registration in bad faith reinforcing the likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark and business, as Internet users are likely to consider the Domain Name as in some way endorsed by or connected with Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 and 3.2.1). The above further supports the finding that Respondent likely knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-0403). As regards to bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name was employed to host the Website, which appeared falsely to be that of Complainant. Furthermore, the use of the Domain Name to resolve to a website passing itself off as the website of Complainant, whether for phishing of sensitive data from Internet users, or otherwise seeking to take unfair advantage of Complainant's mark, supports a finding of bad faith in these circumstances (see section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). page 5 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 Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: November 4, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy