ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION SESSUN v. Vernon S Mercado Case No. D2025-2500 1. The Parties The Complainant is SESSUN, France, represented by BBLM Avocats, France. The Respondent is Vernon S Mercado, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2025. On June 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 25, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 22, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 24, 2025. The Center appointed Debrett G. Lyons as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2025. 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 factual findings pertinent to the Decision in this case are that: (1) the Complainant is a French company, founded in 1996, which sells clothing, shoes and accessories for women under the trademark SESSUN; (2) the Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 4,497,460, registered on March 18, 2014, for the trademark, SESSUN; (3) the disputed domain name was registered on November 1, 2024; and (4) the disputed domain name is not currently in use but previously resolved to an online location which offered women’s clothing for sale by reference to the trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant asserts trademark rights in SESSUN by reason of use and registration of that term and submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy since it merely comprises the trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.click”. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because there is no relationship between the Parties and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark or register any domain name incorporating that mark. Further, that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and the past use of the disputed domain name has not been bona fide since it was used in connection with a website that offered for sale counterfeit, or at least unauthorised, goods by reference to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith being aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith by selling women’s clothing by reference to the Complainant’s trademark at a site likely to deceive the public into the false belief that those goods were put on the market by, or with the authority of, the Complainant. The Complainant accordingly requests the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is the responsibility of the Panel to consider whether the requirements of the Policy have been met, regardless of the fact that the Respondent failed to submit a response. Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is accepted that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy.1 The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown trademark rights in SESSUN since it provides proof of its registration of that term with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. 2 For the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD can be disregarded.3 The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark and so finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the Complainant may first make out a prima facie case, after which the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by providing evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 4 Notwithstanding the lack of a response to the Complaint, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are 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 Respondent’s name does not suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the Panel finds no other evidence that the Respondent might be known by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant states that there is no association between the Parties and the Panel finds that there is nothing to contradict that claim. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark rights. Finally, panels have held that the use of a domain name for an illegitimate activity, here, the sale of counterfeit or unauthorised goods, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.5 Even if products bearing the trademark for sale at the resolving website were first put on the market by Complainant and are genuine in that sense, the Respondent has not met the good faith criteria laid down in the leading case of Oki Data Americas, Inc v. ASD, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. 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. In failing to file a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come 1WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.1.1. 2WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. 3WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 4WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. 5WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
page 4 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances, which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. They are: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name is caught by paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be identical to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Confusion is thus inevitable. Further, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name is manifestly for commercial gain and so, in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name intending to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by causing a likelihood of confusion as to the source or endorsement of that webpage. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final 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. /Debrett G. Lyons/ Debrett G. Lyons Sole Panelist Date: August 13, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy