The Complainant is ShopStyle UK Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Murgitroyd & Company, UK.
The Respondent is Carole Pelegrin of Gironde, France. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 23, 2017. On November 23, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 27, 2017, the Registry 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 .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 5, 2017. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was January 18, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 23, 2018.
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on January 26, 2018. 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5).
The language of the proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a wholly-owned UK based subsidiary of ShopStyle, Inc., from the United States of America active in the online retail services connected with clothing, footwear and fashion accessories. The latter is the proprietor of the European Union Trademark Registration No. 006824395 for STYLESHOP (word mark) filed on April 10, 2008, registered on January 1, 2009, and protected until April 10, 2028 for services in classes 35, 42, 45.
Since at least 2006 Complainant is promoting its services under SHOPSTYLE mark in UK and through European Union on its main website available at “”.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2017, and at the time of filing the Complaint, it did not resolve to an active website. According to Complainant’s assertions, the disputed domain name was kept inactive from its registration. The Respondent’s postal address, as registered in the WhoIs, is inaccurate; the Notice with Information was undeliverable via courier and fax. The Notification of Complaint was delivered via email. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is substantially identical with, or at last very highly similar to its distinctive trademark SHOPSTYLE, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant is required under Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules to demonstrate the following:
A. that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law; and either
B. that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or
C. that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law
Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 (“the Regulation”) states that “[a] registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that [domain] name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1)”.
Article 10(1) of the Regulation refers to, inter alia: “registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names (…)”.
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules requires that the disputed domain name be “identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a member State and/or Community law”.
The Complainant holds European Union Trademark Registration for the word mark SHOPSTYLE.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SHOPSTYLE in its entirety with an additional ending letter “s” and the country code Top-Level Domain “.eu”, which may be disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant’s trademark is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name as provided under Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the ADR Rules, the burden of proof for the lack of rights and legitimate interests of Respondent lies with the Complainant. However, the existence of negative facts is difficult to prove, and the relevant information for the Respondent (including any potential evidence of rights and legitimate interests) is mostly in its sole possession. Therefore, the Panel holds that it is sufficient that the Complainant makes a prima facie demonstration that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of production then shifts to the Respondent to submit appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
The Complainant contends that it has no relationship or association with the Respondent, and has not authorized the Respondent to use or register in a domain name the SHOPSTYLE trademark, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not using it in connection with the offering of goods or services, or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it without the intent for a commercial gain. Rather, the disputed domain name is kept inactive since its registration and the Respondent has provided false contact information in the WhoIs. Thus, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
If the Respondent had any justification for registering or using the disputed domain name, it could have provided it. In particular, the Panel couldn’t find evidence described in Paragraph B(11)(e) of the ADR Rules that (i) prior to commencing this proceeding the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or that it has made demonstrable preparations to do so; (ii) the Respondent as an undertaking, organization or natural person has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; or that (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is recognized or established by national law and/or Community law.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SHOPSTYLE as a dominant element, with insignificant difference of one letter addition. The Complainant’s trademark is protected and used for a decade in relation to services promoted through the website “”. According to the records, the disputed domain name is kept inactive since its registration. Although the Registrar of the disputed domain name requires accurate contact details, the Respondent failed to do so.
Furthermore, the Panel conducted a limited factual search in the TMView database for the Respondent as a trademark applicant and there was no result of any relevant trademark registration/application in its name.
For all the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as provided under Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR Rules. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
Under Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules (a) lack of rights or legitimate interests and (b) registration or use in bad faith are alternative requirements. For reasons explained above under Section 6B, the Panel considers that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and therefore there is no need to separately address the bad faith element. In any case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s actions described under Section 4 are evidence of bad faith as provided under Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy