ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Benda Bili v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited Case No. D2024-0035 1. The Parties Complainant is Benda Bili, France, represented by Nameshield, France. Respondent is Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 5, 2024. On January 8, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 9, 2024, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 9, 2024, 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 January 10, 2024. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 15, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2024. Respondent sent the Center an informal communication on January 16, 2024, but did not respond to the allegations in the Complainant. The Center notified Respondent’s default on February 5, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 2024. 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 Complainant is a company based in Paris, France. For years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has offered clothing for sale under the mark SEZANE. Complainant is the owner of International Registration No. 1170876 (registered June 3, 2013) for the mark SÉZANE. In addition, Complainant owns the registration for the domain name (registered April 3, 2003), which Complainant uses to connect with consumers, and to provide information about products offered under its SEZANE mark. The disputed domain name was registered on January 4, 2024. Respondent has used the URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant. Complainant has not authorized any activities by Respondent, nor any use of its trademark thereby. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the (i) disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated in full its SEZANE mark, with the addition only of the dictionary term “robe,” which is also translated from French to English language as “dress,” a type of clothing sold by Complainant under its SEZANE mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the registration or use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in setting up a website meant to impersonate Complainant and to confuse consumers as to the source of ownership of the disputed domain name. Complainant thus asserts that Respondent has used Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s own commercial gain. B. Respondent As noted in Section 1, Respondent filed only an informal communication with the Center asking e.g., for a screen capture and “ Trademark IP document” but did not otherwise reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name incorporates in full Complainant’s SEZANE mark, numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with additional terms does not render a domain name not
page 3 “identical or confusingly similar” for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Polanski, WIPO Case No. D2000-1614 (transferring ); General Electric Company v. Recruiters, WIPO Case No. D2007-0584 (transferring ); Microsoft Corporation v. Step-Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-1500 (transferring ); CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Y2K Concepts Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-1065 (transferring ). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;” (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name;” or (iii) “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.” Respondent did not submit a formal Response to Complainant’s contentions, and Respondent did not allege or otherwise provide any information that would support a finding that Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; to the contrary, the disputed domain name is used to host a page mimicking that of Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] 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 [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] web site or location.” As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used the URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that mimics an official website of Complainant. Respondent is thus trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all 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. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Dated: February 14, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy