No business relationship exists between the parties.
Respondent does not have, and never has had, permission to use the Daniel Wellington trademark.
Daniel Wellington AB (“Daniel Wellington”) was founded in 2011 by Filip Tysander. Since its inception, Daniel Wellington has established itself as one of the fastest growing and most beloved brands in the industry and is known for its sleek and minimalistic design. The preppy stylish watches have become a huge success and the marketing is not made through traditional marketing, but only through social media and its brand ambassadors. Today the brand Daniel Wellington has an astonishing 4,9 million followers on Instagram.
Recently Daniel Wellington launched a new modern take on a classic design, the Iconic Link. The new Iconic collection by Daniel Wellington continues the brand’s founding principles of creating timeless and elegant, yet expressive, pieces. Daniel Wellington has also been recognized and awarded by World Trademark Review for its work on enforcing and protecting its trademark rights and won the Europe, Middle East and Africa Team of the Year.
Accordingly, a simple comparison of Complainant’s Mark’s and the Disputed Domain Name demonstrates that the two are confusingly similar. Therefore, Complainant has established the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a).
The Respondent does not use, and has not used, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.
There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent does not use the Disputed Domain Name for any legitimate or non-commercial fair use.
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business.
First of all, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services since the Disputed Domain Name incorporates a trademark which is not owned by the Respondent. Nor is the Respondent known by the name “Daniel Wellington”. The Respondent is currently masked. The purpose of the Disputed Domain Name is to induce consumers into visiting the website under the misapprehension that the website is endorsed by the Complainant, and/or where the Complainant itself would in the future offer its time pieces. The Respondent has used the URL associated with the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that mimics the official website of the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the DANIEL WELLINGTON mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any similar name or made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate, non-commercial use. In fact, it appears as if the Respondent has had the intention to run an online store since they have chosen the top-level domain name “store”.
Respondent was or should have been aware of Complainant's rights in Complainant’s marks and registered the Disputed Domain in bad faith.
To summarize, DANIEL WELLINGTON is a well-known trademark in the fashion industry. It is highly unlikely that Respondent was at the point of the Disputed Domain Name registration not aware of the rights the Complainant has in the trademark and the value of said trademark. The Respondent bears no relationship to the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name coupled with the gTLD “store” has no other meaning except for referring to Complainant's name and trademark and there is no way in which the Disputed Domain Name could be used legitimately under the current circumstances. Consequently, the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
|