The Complainant is Jacquemus SAS, France, represented by DBK Law Firm, France.
The Respondent is Perklis Georgopoulos, The Project Garments, Greece. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2020. On November 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the Litigious domain name. On December 1, 2020, 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. In reply to a request for clarification by the Center, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 7, 2020. 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 8, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was January 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2021. The Center appointed Mantas Rimkevičius as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2021. 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). 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French company which manufactures and markets clothing and fashion accessories since 2013. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks in the world (hereinafter, the Trademarks), including: - the European Union trade mark JACQUEMUS (reg. no. 018080381) registered on October 18, 2019, in classes 14, 24 and 28; and The Respondent registered the Litigious domain name The Complainant indicates that the Litigious domain name The Complainant further notes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Litigious domain name, provided for in Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, as the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to register and/or use the domain name, containing the Trademarks, and the Respondent was also never given a license or any other authorization to use the Trademarks. The Respondent acquired the Litigious domain name in order to offer it for sale, which cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or a fair use of a domain name, as stated in the previous case law of previous WIPO panels. It is also contended that the Litigious domain name is registered and being used in bad faith, as the Respondent should have known of the existence of the Trademarks, which enjoy a reputation, and likely registered the Litigious domain name in hopes of generating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademarks. As per above, the Complainant requests that this Panel issue a decision that the Litigious domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under Article 21 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or European Union law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it: - has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or - has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Considering the substantive similarities between the ADR Rules and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel also refers to UDRP case law and analysis, where appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law The Panel fully agrees with the contentions made by the Complainant that the Litigious domain name is identical to the Trademarks owned by the Complainant. The Second-Level Domain (“SLD”) part of the Litigious domain name “jacquemus” is identical with the Trademarks. Moreover, all letters which are used in the SLD part of the Litigious domain name coincide with the letters used in the Trademarks. The Panel is of the opinion that the ccTLD “.eu” in the Litigious domain name does not alter the identity of the Litigious domain name to the Trademarks owned by the Complainant. Most panels consider it appropriate to generally disregard the Top-Level Domain (in this case the ccTLD “.eu”) when it comes to the assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark or marks relied upon. This conclusion is in line with the case law of the other panels (please see, for example, Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company LLC and Werner Wyrsch v. Cyrus Jennings,WIPO Case No. DEU2018-0007, and Allianz SE v. George Mullan, Lease,WIPO Case No. DEU2019-0016). Based on the arguments stated above, the Panel concludes that the Litigious domain name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on the evidence provided to the Panel by the Complainant, the Panel finds that no license or other authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Trademarks or any parts thereof by the Complainant for any commercial or non-commercial reasons. No legitimate interests of the Respondent provided for in Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, have been established before the Panel. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Litigious domain name, which is identical to the Trademarks owned by the Complainant. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Article 21, Paragraph 3(a) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 establishes that bad faith, within the meaning of point (b) of Paragraph 1 of the said Regulation may be demonstrated, where circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or European Union law or to a public body. Given the fact that the Litigious domain name was redirected to the website “www.sedo.com”, whereon it was offered for sale for EUR 15,000 (it has been proved by Annex 7 of the Complaint), the Panel concludes that by applying the analogy of law, established in Article 21, Paragraph 3(a) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, the Litigious domain name was registered in bad faith. Moreover, given the vast presence of the Trademarks on the Internet and the scope of their use, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent knew or at least should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s Trademarks and its reputation. Previous panels have already ruled under the UDRP that the Complainant’s trademark JACQUEMUS enjoys a growing reputation, particularly in the fashion world (please see Jacquemus SAS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245862480 / Jacob Inch,WIPO Case No. D2019-3144; and Jacquemus SAS v. wenben zhou,WIPO Case No. D2020-2073), and the Litigious domain name is identical to the Trademarks, the Panel concludes that the Litigious domain name was registered in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the Litigious domain name Mantas Rimkevičius
- the national French trademark JACQUEMUS registered on December 24, 2013, (reg. no. 4057016) in classes 9, 18 and 25.
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy