The Complainant is Maggie Sottero Designs, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sparke Helmore, Australia.
The Respondent is Yimao Xie, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 22, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 23, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 25, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 2, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 30, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 31, 2021. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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 Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant company was established in Utah, United States in January 1997. It is a well-known designer, manufacturer and wholesaler of bridal gowns, each of which is sold under the MAGGIE SOTTERO mark (the “Mark”). Since it was founded the Complainant has designed more than 3,000 styles of Maggie Sottero gowns and manufactured and sold in excess of 1.5 million gowns worldwide. It has registered some 20 domain names comprising the Mark, including The Complainant is the proprietor of at least 55 registered trademarks in various territories worldwide comprising the Mark, including United States trademark number 2415876 registered on December 26, 2000 and United Kingdom trade mark number 2281954 registered on March 15, 2002, both in respect of the word mark MAGGIE SOTTERO. The Domain Name was registered on December 19, 2020. It does not presently resolve to an active website, but at the time of preparation of the Complaint it resolved to a website purporting to offer for sale a range of “fashion goods” (the “Offending Website”). The Complainant has produced evidence that the various photographs featuring models wearing the products offered for sale were either stock images or had been copied from a number of other e-commerce websites. It also appears that attempts to purchase goods from the Offending Website invariably failed because on checkout it stated that no payment methods were available. A pop-up message invited the prospective purchaser to contact the website operator if the purchaser wished to make alternative [payment] arrangements. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Mark over many years. Ignoring the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.pw”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Mark with the addition of the letter “k” as the first letter. In the view of the Panel, the addition of this letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the Domain Name to the Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a website purporting to offer fashion goods for sale, but which uses third party photographs to promote the products and which fails to have a mechanism for taking payment. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name and the Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to use the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature of the Domain Name, comprising as it does the entirety of the unusual name Maggie Sottero, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Domain Name could be put. In the absence of any response by the Respondent, the Panel considers that the obvious inference is that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with a view to misleading Internet users into believing that the website to which the Domain Name resolved was operated or authorised by the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Mark. In the Panel’s view, the use of a domain name for such activity, presumably with a view to commercial gain (notwithstanding the apparent absence, at the time of preparation of the Complaint, of an effective mechanism for taking payment on the website), amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy. The fact that since the Complaint was filed the Domain Name has become inactive does not obviate a finding of bad faith use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Domain Name Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: April 8, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy