ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Interparfums SA. v. Thomasabakrew Thomasabakreweeee Case No. D2023-4145 1. The Parties The Complainant is Interparfums SA., France, internally represented. The Respondent is Thomasabakrew Thomasabakreweeee , United States of America ("United States"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 4, 2023. On October 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 5, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 9, 2023, 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 October 13, 2023. 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 October 24, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 13, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 14, 2023. The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2023. 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 The Complainant Interparfums SA was introduced in Euronext stock exchange in 1995. The company has recently entered the SBF 120 (top 120 companies before Euronext) which makes it particularly noticeable to public eye. The Complainant owns INTER PARFUMS trademark registrations around the world and through ongoing use, including, but not limited to, the following: - United States Trademark INTER PARFUMS n'76330999 in classes 3, 18, and 24, registered on February 4, 2023 - International Trademark INTER PARFUMS n' 763213 in classes 3, 18, and 24, registered on March 16, 2001 - French Trademark INTER PARFUMS n' 99781389 in classes 3, 18, and 24, registered on April 23, 1999 The Complainant also operates the websites located at the domain names "www.interparfums.fr" and "www.interparfums-finance.fr". The disputed domain name was registered on October 2, 2023, and at the time of filing, the disputed domain name was used for a pay-per-click ("PPC") parking page which redirects notably to the Complainant's business partners, including perfumes retailers. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is similar to the trademarks INTER PARFUMS which are entirely reproduced and are instantly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The additional letter "sg" which refers to the geographical code for Singapore where the Complainant has a local office. The Complainant argues that the addition of this term creates a high risk of affiliation with the trademarks' owner, misleading the public into thinking that the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to advance legitimate interests. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name including its trademark. The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must prove that: page 3 (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, "-sg" may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a PPC website which refers also to the Complainant's business partners such as perfumes retailers NOCIBE, MY ORIGINES. There is an obvious risk that Internet users who wish to visit the Complainant's website will unintentionally access to the Respondent's website. The disputed domain name thus creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Eva Fiammenghi/ Eva Fiammenghi Sole Panelist Date: December 6, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy