WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

J. Choo Limited v. J. Choo Ltd

Case No. D2010-1984

1. The Parties

The Complainant is J. Choo Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland represented by A. A. Thornton & Co. of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondent is J. Choo Ltd of London / Xianggangtebiexingzhengqu, the People’s Republic of China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jimmy-chooshoes.org> (“the Domain Name”) is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation (“the Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2010. On November 19, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 22, 2010, 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”).

The Rules, paragraph 11, provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the Respondent and the Registrar in relation to the Domain Name (“the Registration Agreement”), the language of the proceedings shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceedings. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. On November 23, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to both parties communications regarding the language of the proceedings. The Complainant submitted in paragraph 10 of the Complaint that the language of the proceedings should be English as the website hosted at the Domain Name is in English and the Domain Name includes the English word “shoes” after the Complainant’s registered trade mark JIMMY CHOO, therefore indicating that the Respondent has a working knowledge of English. In response to the Center’s email, on November 24, 2010, the Complainant contended that it had nothing to add to its submissions in the Complaint regarding the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not respond by the specified due date.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint on November 30, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 20, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 22, 2010.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2011. 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.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions in paragraph 10 of the Complaint regarding the language of the proceedings and is satisfied that the Respondent appears to be familiar with the English language. The Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceedings in Chinese. Furthermore, the Panel notes that all the communications from the Center to the parties were transmitted in both Chinese and English. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English is the language of the proceedings.

It is possible that the Respondent may not have received the above communications as it appears that the contact details that it provided the Registrar are false. The address, telephone and fax numbers provided indicate a London location and are in fact those of the Complainant. The only difference is the addition of Xianggangtebiexingzhengqu, China as the City/State and Country of the address. The Panel has reviewed the papers and is satisfied that the Center has discharged its responsibility of employing all means reasonably available calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent. If the Respondent chooses to provide inaccurate registration information, it has to accept the possibility of not having actual notice of the proceedings.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company based in the United Kingdom. It has been trading under the brand name JIMMY CHOO since 2001 and its internationally renowned high fashion footwear, handbags and small leather goods are sold in over one hundred own-branded boutiques across thirty two countries. The Complainant and its sister company J. Choo (Jersey) Limited owns numerous trade mark registrations around the world for JIMMY CHOO in a number of classes. Chinese Trade Mark Registration No 1637164 in class 25 is one example of the trade mark registrations submitted by the Complainant in the Complaint.

The Complainant and J. Choo (Jersey) Limited also own many gTLDs and ccTLDs incorporating the JIMMY CHOO trade mark. These include <jimmychooshoes.org> and <jimmy-choo.biz>. These domain names all direct user traffic to the Complainant’s website connected to the domain name, <jimmychoo.com>.

The Domain Name was registered on June 15, 2010¹ and is connected to a website which appears to offer replica JIMMY CHOO branded products for sale. The website also features a picture of Tamara Mellon, the founder of JIMMY CHOO and pictures of JIMMY CHOO products.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met:

(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant states that it and its sister company J. Choo (Jersey) Limited owns numerous trade mark registrations around the world in various classes including classes 14, 18, 24 and 25 for JIMMY CHOO.

The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO trade mark in its entirety which is sufficient to establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The addition of the word “shoes” to the Complainant’s marks does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the trade mark JIMMY CHOO.

(ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and relies on the following grounds:

Firstly, the Respondent has no relationship with or permission from the Complainant to use the JIMMY CHOO marks.

Secondly, the Complainant believes that the JIMMY CHOO branded goods offered for sale on the website connected to the Domain Name are counterfeit as the Complainant has not authorised the sale of its JIMMY CHOO branded products through the Domain Name. The provision of counterfeit products under a domain name incorporating the registered trade mark does not constitute a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. The use of the Domain Name which incorporates the Complainant’s registered trade marks is likely to mislead consumers into believing that the website hosted at the Domain Name is associated with and authorised by the Complainant and the products offered for sale on the website are authentic products. Even if the Respondent is offering genuine JIMMY CHOO products which the Complainant does not believe to be true, the Respondent cannot claim rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the use of which misleads Internet users.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the marks at issue. Further, as the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, the Respondent cannot be found to have made a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Finally, a registrant with a legitimate interest in the Domain Name would not use false details to register the name.

(iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant relies on the following to support its contention that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith:

Firstly, the registration of the Domain Name, a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s registered trade mark, is aimed at disrupting the Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users searching for the Complainant’s products and leading them away from the Complainant’s genuine websites.

Secondly, the Respondent registered the Domain Name with false contact details. The Respondent used the Complainant’s name, address, telephone and fax numbers (see section 3 above). In addition, as at September 24, 2010, the Domain Name was registered with the same email contact address, […]@uk.clara.net as that of the Complainant’s website at “www.jimmychoo.com”. This was subsequently changed (at least by November 16, 2010) to […]@jimmy-shooshoes.org. This calculated attempt to impersonate the Complainant is aimed at confusing and is likely to confuse any consumers who may look at the WhoIs details to ascertain whether the website is authorised by the Complainant and any goods sold through the website genuine.

Thirdly, at the time of the registration of the Domain Name, the Respondent would have been aware of the fame and repute of the JIMMY CHOO brand. The registration of a domain name that incorporates or is confusingly similar to a registered trade mark of considerable fame and repute with the intention of profiting through the goodwill associated with the registered trade mark constitutes registration in bad faith.

Fourthly, the Complainant believes that the website at the Domain Name is offering counterfeit products for sale as there are references on the website to “replica JIMMY CHOO” products which would be damaging to the Complainant and constitutes bad faith.

Fifthly, the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name which is very close to the Complainant’s trade mark, use of a picture of Tamara Mellon, the famous founder of the JIMMY CHOO brand and pictures of genuine JIMMY CHOO products on the website at the Domain Name aims to create the impression of association with the Complainant or endorsement of the Respondent’s website when in fact it is not an authorised retailer and has no relationship with the Complainant.

Finally, the use of the above images, the Complainant’s JIMMY CHOO trade mark, the Complainant’s company name and address is an attempt to ride on the reputation of the JIMMY CHOO brand and an attempt to mislead the customers.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s registered trade mark JIMMY CHOO (details are to be found in section 4), the descriptive term “shoes” and the generic ‘.com’ domain suffix. The addition of a descriptive term apt to describe the Complainant’s products does nothing to minimise the risk of confusion. Moreover, for the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic domain suffix. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case (details are set out in section 5A), a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s marks when it registered the Domain Name. The fact that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark and the Respondent used the Complainant’s name and contact details in the registration of the Domain Name is evidence that the registration of the Domain Name was in bad faith.

The Panel also concludes that the actual use of the Domain Name is in bad faith. The products on sale on the website connected to the Domain Name are likely to be counterfeit JIMMY CHOO products. There is a clear intention to attract for commercial gain by confusing and misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s website is and the products sold on it are authorised or endorsed by the Complainant. This is clearly bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <jimmy-chooshoes.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Karen Fong
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 21, 2011

¹ The Panel notes that in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered in April 2010. This does not accord with the WhoIs search submitted with the Complaint and the Registrar’s verification statement. The Panel concludes that it is a typographical error and determines from the evidence before it that the date of registration was in June 15, 2010.