WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. zhouguo jun

Case No. D2012-1498

1. The Parties

Complainant is Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft of Triesen, Liechtenstein, represented by LegalBase (Pvt) Limited, Sri Lanka.

Respondent is zhouguo jun of Haerbin, Heilongjiang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <swarovskislovak.com> is registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2012. On July 24, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2012, Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July 25, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both the Chinese and English language regarding the language of proceedings. On the same day, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of proceedings. Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 22, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 23, 2012.

The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2012. 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

Complainant, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft, is a company incorpated in Triesen, Liechtenstein. Swarovski is a leading producer of cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones with production facilities in 18 countries, distribution to 42 countries and a presence in more than 120 countries.

Complainant has exclusive rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks. Complainant is the exclusive owner of well-known registered trademarks globally (see Annex B to the Complaint), including China (since 1987), Slovakia and the Czech Republic (CTM registration since 2004) (See Annex C to the Complaint). It also owns the domain name registrations <swarovski.com> (since January 11, 1996) and <swarovski.net> (since April 16, 1998) (see Annexes L and M to the Complaint).

Respondent is zhouguo jun of Haerbin, Heilongjiang, China. The disputed domain name <swarovskislovak.com> was registered on October 15, 2011, long after the SWAROVSKI Marks became internationally well-known (Annex A to the Complaint).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(a) Complainant is the exclusive owner of trademark rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks.

Complainant is the world’s leading producer of cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones.

Complainant has registered the SWAROVSKI Marks globally (an excerpt of a selection of the registrations is attached as Annex B to the Complaint), including China, Slovakia and Czech Republic (Annex C to the Complaint).

SWAROVSKI Marks have become famous and well-known in China, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. (Annexes D-J to the Complaint).

Complainant has registered several domain names, including <swarovski.com> and <swarovski.net>.

(b) The disputed domain name was improperly registered and is being improperly used.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2011.

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse consumers into believing that the website at the disputed domain name (the “Website”) is an official website of Complainant and/or Respondent is affiliated with or authorised to sell products by Complainant.

Respondent is operating an online shop that offers various purported Swarovski products for sale, such as “Swarovski Necklaces”, “Swarovski Rings”, “Swarovski Bracelets”, “Swarovski Earrings”, “Swarovski Bangle”, “Swarovski Sets” and more (Annex M to the Complaint).

By utilising the SWAROVSKI Marks in conjunction with the word “slovak”, Respondent is aiming to create a false and misleading impression among consumers that the websites are authorised to sell Swarovski jewelry, particularly in Slovakia.

The content on the Website is in Czech and English. Respondent has listed “Swarovski Crystal” as the manufacturer of some of the products. This is clearly intended to give consumers the impression of affiliation with or authorisation by Complainant and the Respondent is creating the impression that the Website is an official Swarovski website and the Respondent is an authorized seller of Complainant’s products.

Respondent does not at any point identify himself as being independent from Complainant. The disputed domain name is a blatant infringement of the SWAROVSKI Marks and no bona fide use is being made of the disputed domain name. Respondent is trying to pass himself off as Complainant and is exploiting the goodwill associated with the SWAROVSKI Marks in order to obtain commercial gain.

(c) The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the SWAROVSKI Marks.

UDRP panels have recognised that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or mark.

Respondent has used the SWAROVSKI Marks in the disputed domain name so as to cause confusion among Internet users between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s approved websites.

Misdirecting Internet users to the disputed domain name takes advantage of this confusion.

This type of initial interest confusion or diversion of traffic is illegal because it wrongfully capitalises on Complainant’s goodwill in the SWAROVSKI Marks.

The addition of the term “slovak” as a suffix to the SWAROVSKI Marks does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark, and does not differentiate the disputed domain name enough to prevent confusion among consumers.

Numerous UDRP panels have found that the addition of a geographical name or indicator to a trademark does not serve to differentiate the domain name from complainant.

Panels have also held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety.

(d) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Complainant’s rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks have been recognised by several UDRP panels.

Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interests in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name “Swarovski”.

Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the SWAROVSKI Marks in a domain name or in any other manner.

The disputed domain name is being used to advertise purported Complainant’s products and the disputed domain name misdirects Internet traffic to the Website. Such a use is contrary to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

Respondent’s misappropriation of the disputed domain name was no accident. Respondent’s use of the SWAROVSKI Marks is clearly for the purpose of misleading consumers into believing that Respondent and the Website are associated with or approved by Complainant.

Previous UDRP panels have held that when a respondent chooses to incorporate a well-known trademark (like the SWAROVSKI Marks) into a domain name without the authorisation of the trademark holder that this cannot be considered a bona fide offering.

(e) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

(i) disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith

Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because it was registered with the knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks, as it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks.

Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the SWAROVSKI Marks, cannot be a coincidence as “Swarovski” is not a descriptive or generic term; it is a famous and well-known trademark.

The Website advertises for sale various purported Swarovski products. Registration of a famous mark, like the SWAROVSKI Marks, as a domain name by an entity that has no legitimate relationship with the mark is itself sufficient to demonstrate bad faith.

Previous UDRP panels have found that coupling a descriptive word with complainant’s mark or even a word similar to complainant’s mark in a domain name constitutes bad faith on the part of respondent.

(ii) The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith

Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s trademarks are well-known in China, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and worldwide, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of Complainant.

Respondent has done nothing to identify itself as being independent from Complainant.

Many UDRP panelists have held that Respondent’s very method of using the exact SWAROVSKI Marks to lure consumers to his website demonstrates bad faith use under the Policy.

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts Internet users to the Website because of its purported affiliation with Complainant.

Respondent is attempting to attract consumers for commercial gain to the disputed domain name by creating confusion among consumers by utilising the SWAROVSKI Marks. Respondent, without valid consent, utilises the SWAROVSKI Marks throughout the Website and offers products identical to or similar to Complainant’s products for sale.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented on the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceedings should be English. Complainant filed initially its Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceedings for the following reasons:

(a) It appears from the Registrar’s website that the registration agreement relating to the disputed domain name is in English.

(b) The content on the Website is displayed in Czech as well as English.

(c) It is presumable that Respondent is able to communicate in English.

(d) SWAROVSKI is an international brand with registered marks in multiple jurisdictions whose international business primarily operates in English.

Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceedings and did not object to the use of English as the language of the proceedings.

Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceedings having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceedings. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0593). The language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding should not be prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case. (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004). WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) further states:

“in certain situations, where the respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint (or having been given a fair chance to object has not done so), and Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, the WIPO Center as a provider may accept the language of the complaint, even if it is different from the language of the registration agreement”. (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 4.3; see also L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA,WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).

The Panel has taken into consideration the facts that Complainant is a company from Liechtenstein, and Complainant will be spared the burden of working in Chinese as the language of the proceedings. The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the websites at the disputed domain name includes Latin characters “Swarovski” and English word “slovak” (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).

On the record, Respondent appears to be a Chinese individual and is thus presumably not a native English speaker, but the Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the disputed domain name <swarovskislovak.com> is registered in Latin characters and particularly in English language, rather than Chinese script; (b) the content on the Website is in Czech and English. While some of the tabs and other information is provided in Czech, the product categories and many of the product descriptions are provided in English. Respondent is apparently doing business in English through this website (Annex M to the Complaint); (c) the Website appears to have been directed to users worldwide (particularly English speakers) rather than Chinese speakers; (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the proceedings in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceedings; (e) the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.

Considering these circumstances, the Panel finds the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for this case. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceedings, and the decision will be rendered in English.

6.2. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(i) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

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

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

On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks acquired through registration. The SWAROVSKI Marks have been registered worldwide including in China, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and Complainant has a widespread reputation in producing cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones.

The disputed domain name <swarovskislovak.com> comprises the SWAROVSKI Marks in its entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s trademark by the addition of the word “slovak” to the mark SWAROVSKI. This does not seem to eliminate to this Panel the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).

Generally a respondent “may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another's entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it”. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; General Electric Company v. CPIC NET and Hussain Syed,WIPO Case No. D2001-0087; PCCW-HKTDataCom Services Limited v. Yingke, ADNDRC Case No. HK0500065).

The mere addition of the descriptive term “slovak” as a suffix to Complainant’s mark fails to distinguish to this Panel the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark. By contrast, it may increase the likelihood of confusion. Consumers who visit <swarovskislovak.com> are likely to be confused and may falsely believe that <swarovskislovak.com> is operated by Complainant for selling SWAROVSKI-branded products in Slovakia (see ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. A.B.B Transmission Engineering Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1466; Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba dba Toshiba Corporation v. WUFACAI, WIPO Case No. D2006-0768).

Thus, the Panel finds that the additions are not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the SWAROVSKI Marks.

The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) use of, or preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii) the fact that Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name; or

(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s contentions. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai, WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1 and cases cited therein).

Complainant has rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks globally (international registration - see Annex B to the Complaint), including registration in China since 1987 – (see Annex C to the Complaint) which long precedes Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

According to Complainant, Complainant is the world’s leading producer of cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones with production facilities in 18 countries, distribution to 42 countries and a presence in more than 120 countries. In 2011, Complainant’s products were sold in 1,218 of its own boutiques and through 1,000 partner-operated boutiques worldwide. Complainant’s approximate worldwide revenue in 2011 was EUR 2.87 billion.

Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of SWAROVSKI branded products. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).

Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(a) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the word “Swarovski” in its business operation or the use of the SWAROVSKI Marks and design on its website (without disclaimer or other clarifying details). There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the SWAROVSKI Marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the SWAROVSKI Marks;

(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <swarovskislovak.com> on October 15, 2011. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAROVSKI Marks.

(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, according to the information provided by Complainant, Respondent was in actuality advertising, offering and selling purported Swarovski products at <swarovskislovak.com> (Annex M to the Complaint).

The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

(a) Registered in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the SWAROVSKI Mark with regard to its products. Complainant has registered its SWAROVSKI Marks internationally, including registration in China (since 1987). Moreover, the Website advertises for sale various purported Swarovski products. Respondent would likely not have advertised products purporting to be Swarovski products on the Website if it was unaware of Complainant reputation. In the other words, it is not conceivable to this Panel that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark right at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the SWAROVSKI Mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).

Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to formally respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. (see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787). Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant’s SWAROVSKI branded products.

(b) Used in Bad Faith

Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that by using a confusingly similar domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites” offering Complainant’s SWAROVSKI branded products and services without authorization. Complainant claimed that Respondent is attempting to attract consumers for “commercial gain” to the disputed domain name by creating confusion among consumers by utilising the SWAROVSKI Marks.

To establish an “intention for commercial gain” for the purpose of this Policy, evidence is required to indicate that it is “more likely than not” that intention existed (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart China Co. Ltd v. Liangchenyong, ADNDRC Case No. HKcc-0800008).

Given the widespread reputation of the SWAROVSKI Mark (as well as the content on the Website mentioned above), the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Website to which the disputed domain name is resolved (see Annexes K-M to the Complaint). In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents created a likelihood of confusion with the SWAROVSKI Mark. Noting also that apparently no clarification as to Respondent’s relationship to Complainant is made on the homepage of the disputed domain name, potential Internet users are led to believe that the website at <swarovskislovak.com> is either Complainant’s site or the site of official authorized agents of Complainant, which it is not. Moreover, Respondent has not responded formally to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was used by Respondent in bad faith.

In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the Website on to which the disputed domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) 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 at <swarovskislovak.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2012