The Complainant is Bottega Veneta SA of Cadempino, Switzerland, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.
The Respondent is Arianna Bureau of Madrid, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1API GmbH (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 13, 2016. On January 14, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 2016, 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 January 27, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 16, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 17, 2016.
The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on February 29, 2016. 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, Bottega Veneta SA, was founded in the mid-1960s in Vicenza, Italy. The name "Bottega Veneta" means "Venetian atelier" and the Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for BOTTEGA VENETA in Europe.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 27, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
In 2014, BOTTEGA VENETA was recognized as Best International Luxury Brand at the prestigious Walpole British Luxury Awards for the second time, for being the brand with the greatest impact in terms of sales in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and abroad, through innovation, business, strategy and media exposure during 2013 to 2014.
In light of the Complainant's substantial investments in advertising, its marketing and sales worldwide, its consistent use of the trademark BOTTEGA VENETA for decades, BOTTEGA VENETA is indisputably a well-known trademark worldwide, including in Spain, where the Respondent is located, according to the WhoIs records of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name entirely reproduces the Complainant's trademark BOTTEGA VENETA, with the mere addition of the hyphen and of the Top-Level Domain suffix ".co", which shall be disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use BOTTEGA VENETA mark in connection with a website or for any other purpose. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is pointed to a Sedo web page where the disputed domain name is offered for sale. The use of a domain name corresponding to a registered and well-known trademark in connection with a pay-per-click website where the disputed domain name is also offered for sale cannot be considered either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In the Panel's view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the facts presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, as required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's BOTTEGA VENETA mark in full with the mere addition of the hyphen and of the Top-Level Domain suffix ".co".
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds the following on the record in this proceeding:
- The Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- The Policy indicates that a registrant may have a right or legitimate interest in a domain name if it was making use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute;
The Respondent's knowledge of the Complainant's right is presumed since BOTTEGA VENETA is a famous trademark;
- The Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant and has no authorization to use any of the Complainant's trademarks; and
- There is no evidence that the Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business or other organization.
Thus, in the Panel's view, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use activity.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
In the Panel's view, there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights in the BOTTEGA VENETA mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, indicating that such registration was made in bad faith.
The disputed domain name is parked with Sedo where the disputed domain name is offered for sale and resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links. The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Date: March 8, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy