The Complainant is Christian Dior Couture of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Marc Sabatier, France.
The Respondent is Yang ChengGuang of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1API GmbH. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2010. On July 1, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to 1API GmbH a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 2010, 1API GmbH. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 7, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 27, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 28, 2010.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on August 5, 2010. 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
The Complainant is a company incorporated in France which markets a wide variety of goods, particularly high fashion clothing, throughout the world under the Christian Dior brand.
The trademark CHRISTIAN DIOR has been registered by the Complainant in numerous countries throughout the world. These registrations have been in force for many years. In particular, it owns a trademark in the People’s Republic of China for CHRISTIAN DIOR, filed on June 5, 1992 and also an international trademark for CHRISTIAN DIOR in Chinese characters filed on November 8, 1993.
The Complainant is the registrant of several domain names such as . It has been successful in several decisions filed with the Center under the Policy in which panels held that names such as and were confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant (See Christian Dior Couture v. TP, WIPO Case No. D2007-0877 and Christian Dior Couture v. David Marrero, WIPO Case No. DES2008-0023).
The disputed domain name was registered on April 1, 2010.
Five days after the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent offered by email to sell it to the Complainant – the first price proposed was USD100 but later it escalated to USD100,000.
On April 28, 2010, the disputed domain name was directed towards a website operated by Chanel and on June 25, 2010, towards a website directed and operated by Luis Vuitton. These websites are operated by competitors of the Complainant in the luxury goods market. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks. It gave no authority to the Respondent to use its trademark in a domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant submits that the registration of the disputed domain name must have been in bad faith, since the Respondent tried to sell the disputed domain name within day of the registration.
The direction of Internet users to the websites of competitors of the Complainant indicates bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. Therefore, the Panel shall decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, drawing such inferences from the Respondent’s default as are considered appropriate according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the numerous international trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no license or otherwise which would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not attempted to invoke paragraph 4(c) of the Policy which could provide a defence to the prima facie case made out in the Complaint under this heading. He has provided no evidence on which a finding under paragraph 4(c) could be entertained. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The CHRISTIAN DIOR trademark has a reputation and is well-known throughout the world. The fact that the Respondent sought to sell the disputed domain name within days of registering the disputed domain name, clearly puts this case into the category of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
In other words, there are compelling circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name purely for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant for a valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
The Respondent’s conduct in endeavouring to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for an exorbitant amount demonstrates beyond any doubt that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Moreover, the action of the Respondent in directing users to the websites of competitors of the Complainant clearly comes within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Put another way, the Respondent has intentionally intended to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his website or location or of a product or service on his website or location.
The whole of the Respondent’s conduct indicates this is just a cheeky registration of a domain name intended to hijack a trademark which is known worldwide.
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and, therefore, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 the Complainant.
Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy