FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant is a German fashion designer named Philipp Plein, founder of the eponymous brand. Currently, Philipp Plein is universally recognised as a leading brand in the luxury fashion industry.
The Complainant participates to the most important fashion shows around the world (Milan, Paris, NewYork, among others) and it's advertising campaigns are universally renowned to be unique and very impacting.
The Complainant states that the market recognises the Complainant’s fashion collections, and the world of PHILIPP PLEIN is enjoying a big success today with showrooms all over the world: more than 36 mono-brand stores, over 500 retail clients worldwide, China and Honk Kong included.
The Complainant further asserts that:
- Philipp Plein runs at a double digit rate of expansion, and currently has a turnover of over one hundred million Euro.
- the Complainant is active on several social networks, such as facebook, twitter or Instagram.
- due to its longstanding use, and the huge promotional and advertising investments, the PHILIPP PLEIN trademark is certainly well-known.
The disputed domain name <ppleinoutlet.com> was registered on December 2, 2017. The Complainant states that to the date of filing the Complaint, no website had been operated from the disputed domain name <ppleinoutlet.com>.
The Complainant assumes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks. The Complainant further states that the mere fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered trademark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. As the Complainant assumes, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trademark entirely and this is sufficient to conclude that the first requirement under the Policy is met. Moreover, the initial double letters "PP" in the disputed domain name <ppleinoutlet.com> are a clear reference to the Complainant's device trademark (US Registration No. 4181456).
Furthermore, the Complainant assumes that the addition of generic and descriptive words, such as "outlet", rather than exclude a similarity with the earlier well-known PHILIPP PLEIN trademark, increases the likelihood of confusion, since the combination between the PLEIN trademark and such word gives the idea that the disputed domain name will be used to host an online point of sale of discontinued Philipp Plein goods.
Finally, as the Complainant states, the addition of a gTLD such as "com" in a domain name is technically required and it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar.
Furthermore, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
At the time of filing the Complaint, the Registrant's contact details were shielded by a Privacy Protection service. After filing the Complaint, the Registrar disclosed the WHOIS contact details of the Respondent as stated above.
The WHOIS record provided by the Registrar appears to indicate that the disputed domain name was registered or transferred to the current Complainant (Philipp Plein). However, as the Complainant claims, it neither has registered nor obtained the ownership of <ppleinoutlet.com>. The Complainant assumes that the WHOIS record provides false information and the disputed domain name is controlled by an unidentified third party. This - to the Complaint's opinion - is also proven by the fact that the WHOIS record provides the e-mail address msrshop100@yahoo.com as "Registrant E-mail", which has no relation to Philipp Plein's nor to its Counsels.
The Complainant denies that the Respondent could have any right or legitimate interest in registering the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant's internal policies with respect to dealers, agents, distributers, wholesalers or retailers are very strict on the use of the PHILIPP PLEIN's trademarks as they do not authorise any of the above-mentioned subjects to register a domain name containing the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant assumes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users on its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.
|