WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Red Diamond Holding Sarl v. Semi Jung

Case No. D2016-1050

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Red Diamond Holding Sarl of Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Semi Jung of Bukgu, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lee-cooper.com> is registered with DropCatch.com 373 LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2016. On May 26, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 1, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 21, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 22, 2016.

The Center appointed David Stone as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 2016. 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 large clothing company which licenses the sale of a range of clothes, including denim jeans, worldwide under various brands including LEE COOPER. The Complainant owns several trademarks for the term LEE COOPER, including an International trademark with registration number 1127681, registered on February 22, 2012, which is designated to the Republic of Korea under the Madrid Protocol.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <leecooper.com>. The disputed domain name <lee-cooper.com> was registered on January 27, 2016. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains several hyperlinks, including “Mode Femme” and “Mode Homme” (or, when accessed in English, “Men’s Fashion” and “Women’s Fashion”).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <lee-cooper.com> is identical to the trademark LEE COOPER, and that the addition of a dash “-” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” does not affect this finding or change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <lee-cooper.com>. There is no similarity between the Respondent’s name and the disputed domain name, and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, or have business with, the Respondent. Neither a licence nor authorisation has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s request for an explanation as to why the disputed domain name was registered.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which contains commercial hyperlinks which relate to the field of the Complainant’s business. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract intentionally, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name is also offered for sale.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:

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

(ii) the 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown that it owns an International registered trademark for LEE COOPER designated to the Republic of Korea, which pre-dates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name <lee-cooper.com> includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark. The addition of a dash “-” and the gTLD extension “.com” does not affect this finding or change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the criteria which determine whether a domain name holder has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, namely if it has demonstrated:

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

(ii) a common association with the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Respondent does not appear to run any business activity in connection with the disputed domain name. It can be seen that the disputed domain name is not used by the Respondent in connection with a genuine offering of goods and services; rather, it resolves to a website that lists commercial hyperlinks. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is offered for sale. There does not appear to be any connection between the disputed domain name and the name or business of the Respondent, nor does the Respondent have any relationship with the Complainant.

The Complainant has established a presumptive case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint and thus has not presented any other evidence or elements to justify any rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name.

There is no indication that any of the circumstances described in Paragraph 4(c)(i) – (iii) of the Policy could apply to the present matter. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out the non-exhaustive criteria for bad faith, for example:

(i) sell, rent, or transfer the disputed domain name to the trademark owner (or a competitor thereof) for a profit;

(ii) prevent the trademark owner from registering its trademark in a domain name;

(iii) disrupt the business of a competitor; or

(iv) divert Internet traffic for commercial gain.

The website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains a list of commercial hyperlinks, some of which relate to the clothing industry in which the Complainant operates. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the use of the disputed domain name is intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 disputed domain name, <lee-cooper.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

David Stone
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2016