- Posted by Doyles
- On September 19, 2015
- 0 Comments
- Goyard Merchandise, Goyard St-Honore v. Alice Chan WIPO Case No. D2013-1753
Case Details for WIPO Case D2013-1753
WIPO Case Summary
WIPO Case Number D2013-1753
Domain name(s) goyardreplicauk.com
Complainant GOYARD ST-HONORE
Respondent Alice Chan
Panelist Barker, Sir Ian
Decision Date 03-12-2013
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
GOYARD ST-HONORE v. Alice Chan
Case No. D2013-1753
1. The Parties
The Complainant is GOYARD ST-HONORE of Paris, France, represented by Lexington Law, France.
The Respondent is Alice Chan of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 11, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 11, 2013, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 17, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 6, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 7, 2013.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2013. 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 well-known luggage and fashion handbag designer established in 1853. It takes its name from that of its founder Francois Goyard. It owns trademark registrations for the mark GOYARD in many jurisdictions worldwide including China where the Respondent is allegedly located. In addition, the Complainant owns numerous domain names reflecting the Goyard trademark such as and .
The Complainant’s trademark has been widely marketed throughout the world where it has achieved considerable acceptance and fame.
The Respondent, on a website accessed by the disputed domain name, displays replicas imitating the Complainant’s products. These are obviously counterfeit. Indeed, the Respondent indicated on the website “As we all know Goyard was born in 1853 and created by Francois Goyard in France, Paris. Goyard products are high-end luxury and they are the favorite of fashion men and women … Our Online Shop offers the below price best top Quality Goyard Replica Handbags. Goyard Replica Luggage, Goyard Replica Wallets for all customers.”
The Complainant’s device trademark also features on the Respondent’s website.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2013.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave no rights to the Respondent. The Respondent has not given any evidence which would bring it within paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following elements of a claim for transfer or cancellation of a respondent’s domain name:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name contains the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark. The add-ons to the word mark are “replica” and “UK” which commonly stands for United Kingdom. These words cannot be considered sufficient to avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. In fact, they aggravate the confusing similarity by truthfully recording that the Respondent is selling replicas of the Complainants goods in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no right to reflect its trademark in the disputed domain name.
In the absence of any claim by the Respondent to come within paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, this is sufficient to satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent has not sought to come within any of the limbs of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy which, if proved, could have provided a defense.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
There can be no doubt that bad faith registration and use can clearly be inferred. The content of the Respondent’s website shows that it knows a lot about the Complainant and its business. So much so, that it is blatantly pirating the Complainant’s trademark and goodwill by offering to sell counterfeit Goyard merchandise.
Internet users are likely to be misled into believing that they have found the Complainant’s legitimate website. However, the Complainant manufactures its goods in France, it controls its marketing processes, it never sells on the Internet and the prices offered by the Respondent are well below those charged by the Complainant.
The Respondent is clearly trading on the Complainant’s reputation and trademark in a bid to make money out of its counterfeit activities.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.
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.
Sir Ian Barker
Date: December 3, 2013