WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Hermes International v. VISA WEN

Case No. D2010-2265

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Hermes International of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is VISA WEN of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <replicahandbagshermes.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 23, 2010. On December 28, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 28, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 January 7, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 27, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2011.

The Center appointed Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 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.

4. Factual Background

The following summary sets out the uncontested factual submissions made by the Complainant:

4.1 The Complainant is a French high fashion house established in 1837, specializing in leather, ready-to wear, lifestyle accessories, perfumery and luxury goods.

4.2 The Hermès family settled in France in 1828. In 1837, Thierry Hermès first established Hermès as a harness workshop where he created wrought harnesses and bridles for the carriage trade. Charles-Émile Hermès took over management from his father and moved the shop in 1880 to its current location at 24 Rue Faubourg Saint-Honoré. With the aid of sons Adolphe and Émile-Maurice Hermès, the company catered to the elite of Europe, North Africa, Asia, and the Americas and by the late 1950s, the Hermès logo had reached renowned status.

4.3 In 1976, the Complainant restructured itself as a holding company and continued with its expansion efforts worldwide.

4.4 The Complainant celebrated its 150th anniversary in 1987 and by June 1993, the Complainant had gone public on the Paris Bourse (stock exchange).

4.5 As of 2008, the Complainant has 14 product divisions encompassing leather, scarves, ties, menswear, women's fashion, perfume, watches, stationery, footwear, gloves, enamel, decorative arts, tableware and jewellery. Sales are made up of about 30% leather goods, 15% clothes and 12% scarves. The Complainant has never licensed any of its products and keeps tight control over the design and manufacture of its vast range of goods. High quality is a hallmark of the products produced under the HERMÈS trademark.

4.6 The Complainant’s revenue is approximately 1.914 billion euros (2009) and it employs more than 8000 employees.

4.7 In 2009, the Asia-Pacific region generated 43% of the Complainant’s sales. It delivered revenues of 831 million euros, rising by 7% at constant exchange rates and by 13% in the retail sector.

4.8 The Complainant also offers for sale its luxurious goods online, through its official website located at “www.hermes.com”.

4.9 The Complainant is the registered owner of a substantial number of trademarks consisting or including the word HERMES in France and abroad. Amongst other jurisdictions, the Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks, in France, the European Union, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China:

HERMES, French nominative trademark No. 1 558 350 of October 16, 1979,

HERMES, Community nominative trademark No. 008772428 of December 1, 2009

HERMES, American nominative trademark No. 2213940 of May 15, 1997

HERMES, American nominative trademark No. 368785 of March 1, 1939

HERMES, Chinese nominative trademark No. 4932845 of October 8, 2005

HERMES, Chinese nominative trademark No. 4933050 of October 8, 2005

HERMES & carriage design, French device trademark No. 1 377 454 of November 30, 1976

HERMES & carriage design, Community device trademark No. 008772436 of December 1, 2009

HERMES & carriage design, American device trademark No. 883588 of December 20, 1967

HERMES & carriage design, Chinese device trademark No. 4933036 of October 8, 2005

HERMES, International nominative trademark No. 196756 of November 21, 1956

These trademarks have been continuously used in commerce since their registration.

4.10 The Complainant also uses its HERMES trademark as domain name to promote its activities. These domain names include:

<hermes.com> registered on November 24, 1997

<hermes.pro> registered on September 08, 2008

<hermes.asia> registered on February 14, 2008

<hermes.fr> registered on March 18, 1996

<hermes.eu> registered on March 09, 2006

All of these domain names are redirected to the official website of the Complainant at “www.hermes.com”.

4.11 The Complainant states that the HERMES trademark falls into the category of a “famous mark” as it is well known throughout the world (including in China, where the Respondent is apparently located) for leather goods, ready-to-wear, lifestyle accessories, perfumery, and luxury goods.

4.12 The Respondent offers for sale on the website comprising the disputed domain name, counterfeit or unauthorized imitations of goods that bear the HERMES trademark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

5.1 The Complainant contends that it has rights to the HERMES trademark and that the disputed domain name <replicahandgshermes.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HERMES trademark. The disputed domain name comprises of the Complainant’s HERMES trademark in its entirety and additional words which are generic and non-distinctive. The inclusion of the non-distinctive words only seek to reinforce the connection in the public minds between the HERMES trademark and the Complainant.

5.2 The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because:

(a) the Respondent is not currently and has never been known as “hermes” or “replicahandbagshermes”.

(b) the Respondent is not, in anyway, related to the Complainant’s business, is not one of its agents and does not carry out any activity for or has any business with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent in any way.

(c) the Complainant’s goods are sold throughout the world, including China, through self-owned stores whereas the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit or unauthorised imitations of hermes products in the absence of any rights or legitimate interest.

(d) the Complainant has never given any authorization or permission to the Respondent to register or to use the disputed domain name.

5.3 In relation to the requirement of bad faith registration and use of the domain name, the Complainant contends as follows:

(a) the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark as HERMES is a well-known trademark worldwide including the People’s Republic of China.

(b) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of commercially benefitting from Internet traffic arriving at its websites, which enable the Internet users to purchase counterfeit or unauthorized imitations of hermes products at discounted prices.

(c) through the websites, the Respondent is offering for sale counterfeit or unauthorized imitations of products that bear the Complainant’s HERMES trademark which could cause considerable damage to the Complainant’s rights and its legitimate business interests.

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 to establish the following elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

(a) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate rights in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(c) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

6.1. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied with the evidence adduced by the Complainant to evidence its rights to the trademark HERMES. The trademark is not only registered by the Complainant in numerous jurisdictions but it has also been used extensively by the Complainant and its group of companies on a worldwide basis for more than 170 years.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s HERMES trademark in its entirety with the additional word “replicahandbags”. This additional word does not by itself, make the disputed domain name distinctive in character. The disputed domain name, when read as a whole, reads as “REPLICAHANDBAGSHERMES” The distinctive feature of the disputed domain name remains the HERMES trademark (see Hermes International, SCA v. cui zhenhua,, WIPO Case No. D2010-1743 (<hermes-handbag.com>; and Christian Dior Couture v. Carl Lim, WIPO Case No. D2008-1038 (<dior-bag.com>)).

In Chopard International S.A. v. Vladimit Kozlov, WIPO Case No. D2007-1544 (<chopardreplicawatch.com>), the Panel found that, “the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CHOPARD. The disputed domain name encompasses the mark CHOPARD in its entirety.” “The Panel has considered whether the use of the word ‘replica’, which is an integral part of the disputed domain name, could be said to indicate that the domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. However the Panel has reached the view that in this context “replica” does not take the disputed domain name out of this category.” “The fact that Chopard is the first and dominant word of the domain name may be enough for some web users to be confused or deceived into thinking that the site is connected with the Complainant (i.e. initial interest confusion).” “The word ‘replica’ […] does not instantly tell the Internet users that this site is not connected with the Complainant.”

As such the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HERMES trademark for the purpose of the Policy.

6.2. Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name

The Complainant’s assertions had not been rebutted by the Respondent to indicate whether it has any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. There was also no evidence to indicate that the Respondent was known by the name “hermes” or ”replicahandbagshermes”.

The Complainant has adduced sufficient evidence that the disputed domain name is being used solely for commercial gain. The website located at <replicahandbagshermes.com> indicates that the Respondent is using the website to promote the sale of counterfeit or unauthorized imitations of the Complainant’s products at a discount to the Complainant’s HERMES genuine products.

The Complainant further confirms that the Respondent has not been authorised to sell the Complainant’s products or to use the HERMES trademark. In Hermes International, SCA v. cui zhenhua, supra, it was held that “[t]he Complainant has not authorized, licensed or permitted the Respondent to use the trademark HERMES. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.” “[T]he Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.” (See also Christian Dior Couture v. Carl Lim, supra.)

The failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complainant’s contentions and the evidence adduced by the Complainant leads the Panel to find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel could find not find any justification, rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to the words comprising the disputed domain name.

Based on the above circumstances, the Panel is, therefore, satisfied that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been proven by the Complainant.

6.3. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel agrees with the contention by the Complainant that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s HERMES trademark when it registered and started using the disputed domain name. The factors that were taken into account to arrive at this conclusion include the date of registration of the disputed domain name which was only as recent as 2010 when compared to the date when the Complainant started using the HERMES trademark and the <hermes.com> website, the widespread use of the HERMES trademark by the Complainant at a global level and the fact that the Respondent was openly selling counterfeit or unauthorized imitations of the Complainant’s products through its website. At the time the Complaint was filed, the website stated explicitly that, “[t]he company has more than one position and close the factory, and a skilled and professional group craftmen.” “According to our pursuit of perfect quality, we choose first-class materials, and efforts to use the original manufacturers of the same thing.” “Replicahandbagshermes.com the best replica designer handbags […] sold around the world.”

In Balenciaga v. Liu Zhixian, zhixian liu, WIPO Case No. D2010-1831 (<balenciaga-bags.com>), the Panel took into account the fact that the respondent was selling counterfeit bags in determining bad faith. The Panel held that “…the Respondent must have had the Complainant’s notorious trademark in mind when he registered the domain name, as evidenced in particular by the use to which the Domain Name has been put [(“sale of counterfeit bags”)]. In view of the Panel’s finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, it follows that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.”

Similarly, in Hermes International, SCA v. cui zhenhua, supra, the Panel found that the respondent was offering for sale counterfeit goods through the website under the domain name in dispute. In this regard the Panel held that. “[t]he Complainant has asserted that the website which was operated at the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent to offer for sale counterfeit Hermes branded products and this assertion has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent claims its products as replica trademarked products on the website under the disputed domain name. The sale of counterfeited goods under the Complainant’s trademark amounts to bad faith.” “The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website…” . “… [T]he Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith…”

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent had knowledge of the reputation and goodwill of the HERMES trademark when he sought to register the disputed domain name and he intended to use and indeed used the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit or unauthorised imitations of the Complainants’ Hermes products. As such, the Panel finds that bad faith has been demonstrated under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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 disputed domain name, <replicahandbagshermes.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 22, 2011