{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101942",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-04-03 09:00:57",
    "domain_names": [
        "PHILIPPEPLEINPASCHER.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Philipp Plein"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Andrea Mascetti (Barzanò & Zanardo Milano S.p.A.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Guo jiayu"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the well-known German fashion designer, Philipp Plein, and the founder of the brand, Philipp Plein. \r\n\r\nThis is a leading brand in the luxury fashion industry. Its website is at http:\/\/world.philipp-plein.com\/ The Complainant participates in the major fashion shows around the world (Milan, Paris, New York, among others) and its advertising campaigns are universally renowned as unique and high impact. The label enjoys growth and success and today has showrooms all over the world with more than 36 mono-brand stores and over 500 retail clients worldwide, including Russia. Philipp Plein runs at a double-digit rate of expansion, and currently has a turnover of over one hundred million Euros. \r\n\r\nPhilipp Plein has several sponsorship agreements, with among others, AS Roma (one of the most important Italian soccer teams), Mauro Icardi, (one of the most important footballers in the world) and Nico Hulkenberg, (the Formula one racer). Due to its longstanding use, and substantial promotional and advertising investments, the Philipp Plein trademark is a well known mark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 13 December 2017, by Mr. Guo Jiayu and the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage offering for sale alleged Philipp Plein items and displaying the well-known Philipp Plein trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name contains the words Philipp Plein with the French word ‘pascher’—the last word being in French and meaning ‘cheap’ so that the overall meaning is sale or discounted Philipp Plein.   \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other proceedings. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1. Similar or Identical to Complainant's mark \r\n\r\nThe Complainant's word mark is entirely contained in the disputed domain name. It is a well-established principle that when a domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's registered mark, the first requirement under the UDRP shall be considered accomplished (see Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. The Omnicorp, WIPO Case No. D2005-1249 and Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). Furthermore, the addition of generic and descriptive words, such as “pas”, “cher”, rather than excluding a similarity with the earlier well-known Philipp Plein trade mark, increase the likelihood of confusion, since these words are all related to the fashion field and to the selling of discounted clothing (i.e. “pas cher” is the French translation of “cheap”). It is clear that the combination of the well-known Philipp Plein mark and such generic words, transmits that the idea that the disputed domain name will be used to offer for sale discounted Philipp Plein goods. Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as \".com\" in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012- 0182). Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the earlier Philipp Plein well-known trademarks, and the first requirement under para. 4 (a)(i) of the Policy and of para. 3(b), (viii), (b)(ix)(1) of the Rules is satisfied.\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name\r\n\r\nAccording to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the burden of proving the absence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name lies with Complainant. It is nevertheless a well-settled principle that satisfying this burden is unduly onerous, since proving a negative fact is logically more difficult than establishing a positive. Accordingly, it is sufficient for the Complainant to produce a prima facie evidence in order to shift the evidential burden of production to Respondent. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110; Audi AG v. Dr. Alireza Fahimipour, WIPO Case No. DIR2006-0003.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Complainant denies the Respondent is an authorized dealer, agent, distributor, wholesaler or retailer of Philipp Plein. In fact, the Complainant has never authorized Guo Jiayu to include its well-known trademark in the disputed domain name, nor to make any other use of its trademark in any manner whatsoever. Complainant also confirms that it is not in possession of, nor aware of the existence of, any evidence tending to demonstrate that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, as individual, business, or other organization. Moreover, to the best knowledge of the Complainant, Guo Jiayu does not own Philipp Plein formative trademarks, which would grant rights on the disputed domain names. In light of these considerations, the Complainant submits the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nCurrently, the disputed domain name is used to offer for sale alleged Philipp Plein clothing, footwear and other items. As noted above, the websites to which the disputed domain name redirect display in a prominent position the Philipp Plein word mark and figurative mark. It is very significant to note, that the Respondent is also using the original images from Philipp Plein’s past and current advertising campaigns. This increases the likelihood of confusion for the relevant consumer and constitutes a clear violation of the Complainant’s copyrights.\r\n\r\nIt is clear that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to present his website as an official e-commerce platform of the Complainant, offering for sale \"alleged\" Philipp Plein goods. Thus, the Respondent is taking unfair advantage from the distinctive character and reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark and unduly seeking to profit from the Complainant's goodwill for its own financial gain.\r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nIn accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy in order to succeed in a UDRP Proceeding, the Complainant must prove, as a third and last requirement, that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. As far as registration in bad faith is concerned, the disputed domain name contains a very well-known third party’s trademark without authorization. The Respondent could not have been unaware of the existence of the PHILIPP PLEIN trade mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, not only because it is a very well-known mark, but also due to the nature of the domain name (consisting of the Complainant’s trademark + terms that potential consumers may very well associate with the Complainant’s activity) and of the website content. As far as use in bad faith is concerned, we note that the disputed domain name links to a website offering alleged “Philipp Plein” goods, and displaying copyrighted pictures taken from the Complainant’s official website without right or consent. The website also features the Complainant’s figurative and word marks, in connection with conflicting goods. This use is certainly not a use in good faith. It may cause substantial damages not only to the Complainant, but also to consumers. On the one side, the Complainant’s image and reputation are strongly affected by the website, which is very similar to the official one and offers for sale conflicting goods. On the other side, consumers share confidential financial information when they purchase goods, with the concrete risk that this information misused by the Respondent. It appears from the above that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used to intentionally attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s official website, also creating the impression that the Respondent’s website is sponsored\/affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant. In view of the above, Complainant respectfully submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith in full satisfaction of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service 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, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have 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, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": "There is one procedural issue and that is language. Under para. 11 of the UDRP the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement unless the parties agree otherwise or the panel makes a different finding. This panel does make a different finding and the language of these proceedings will be English based on the burden to the Complainant otherwise and also the use of English terms on the site to which the disputed domain name resolves. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is therefore satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.  ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Victoria McEvedy"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on its various registered rights including its International Registration No. 794860, for the word mark Philipp Plein of 13 December 2002, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 28 in over 60 countries. \r\n\r\nIt also has various EUTMs (formerly CTMs), including the PP PHILIPP PLEIN device mark, Registration No. 012259503, filed on October 28, 2013 and registered on March 24, 2014, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and the word mark Registration No. 002966505, filed on December 6, 2002 and registered on 21 January 2005 for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28. \r\n\r\nIt also relies on its rights arising from use online and offline and in trade and at http:\/\/world.philipp-plein.com\/.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PHILIPPEPLEINPASCHER.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}