{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101708",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-10-06 12:56:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "CHANTELLELINGERIE.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CHANTELLE SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "Marvin  Anhalt"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company belonging to the Chantelle Group, established in 1876 and operating in the women's lingerie market.  The official website of the Complainant may be found at www.chantelle.com.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual based in the United States.  \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 8 February 2002.  It currently resolves to a registrar holding page.\r\n\r\nPursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the Panel issued a Procedural Order on 16 November 2017, noting that a simple online search had revealed that both parties had been involved in a previous UDRP decision in 2001, namely Chantelle v. Marvin Anhalt, WIPO Case No. D2001-1181, <chantellebra.com> and <chantellebras.com>.  The Panel noted that this decision was denied on the basis that the Respondent had a connection with one of the Complainant's authorised distributors, and requested the parties to provide further information.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant filed an additional submission within the deadline set by the Panel, but the Respondent did not respond.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.",
    "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant evidences the three trade mark rights listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above.  The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trade mark, incorporating the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term \"lingerie\".  The Complainant also contends that the use of the .COM generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the use of the descriptive term \"lingerie\" in fact reinforces the confusion with the Complainant's trade mark, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s activity and therefore internet users will likely believe that the disputed domain name redirects to one of the Complainant's official websites.\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that a complainant is required to make out prima-facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s prima-facie case.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known by the Complainant and that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make any use of its trade mark.  The Complainant also states that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the fact that the Respondent did not respond to its cease and desist letter does not provide him with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been pointing to a registrar holding page since it was registered 15 years ago and that there is no evidence that the Respondent has used, or has made any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has only registered the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark. The disputed domain name points to a holding page which cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trade mark as well as the addition of the descriptive term \"lingerie\", there is no doubt that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name has resolved to a registrar holding page since it was registered in 2002.\r\n\r\nTo the Complainant, the lack of response to its cease and desist letter is a further indication of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and maintained the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trade mark in such a domain name, and thus from promoting and developing its e-shop.\r\n\r\nComplainant's additional submission\r\n\r\nIn response to the Panel's Procedural Order, the Complainant pointed out that the two domain names covered by the previous UDRP decision were still pointing to a registrar holding page 16 years later, and underlined that previous panels had found passive holding to equate to a lack of legitimate interest.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant noted that the Respondent had previously been involved in the sale of women's lingerie, including the Complainant's products.  In the Complainant's opinion this meant that there was no doubt that the Respondent knew about the Complainant's trade marks when he registered the disputed domain name, and previous panels had found this to be an indication of bad faith.  In addition, the Complainant argued that the Respondent's activities did not give him the right to register domain names containing the Complainant's trade mark, and that this gave him an unfair advantage.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also pointed out that the Respondent had had many opportunities to explain his registration but had not done so. \r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint nor to the further arguments supplied by the Complainant in response to the Panel's Procedural Order.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). ",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). ",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the Policy were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-12-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trade mark rights:\r\n\r\nInternational Trade mark No. 160643 CHANTELLE in Classes 24 and 25, registered on 27 March 1952;\r\n\r\nEuropean Trade mark No. 001469261 CHANTELLE in Class 38, registered on 8 November 2001; and\r\n\r\nUnited States Trade mark No. 87041110 CHANTELLE, registered on 11 October 2016.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CHANTELLELINGERIE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}