{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102007",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-21 11:52:48",
    "domain_names": [
        "PHILIPPPLEIN-SHOP.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Philipp Plein"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Andrea Mascetti (Barzanò & Zanardo Milano S.p.A.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Hines Anthony"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the German fashion designer Philipp Plein. Philipp Plein is universally recognized as a leading brand in the luxury fashion industry with showrooms all over the world: more than 36 mono-brand stores, over 500 retail clients worldwide and a turnover of over one hundred million Euro.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered on April 13, 2018 by Hines Anthony. Currently, the Disputed domain name redirects to a web page, displaying the Complainant’s trademarks and offering for sale alleged Philipp Plein items.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is of the opinion that the Disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has right because the Disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's registered mark. The addition of the “-SHOP” element does not suffice to exclude the risk of confusion for an internet user. On the contrary, the word “SHOP” could be easily associated with Complainant’s business, thus, increasing the risk of confusion for internet users. Further, the addition of a gTLD such as \".com\" in a domain name is technically required. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant denies that Hines Anthony is an authorized dealer, agent, distributor, wholesaler or retailer of Philipp Plein’s items. Furthermore, it is very improbable that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed domain name, as an individual, business, or other organization as the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and personal name.  \r\n\r\nFurthermore, Complainant states that the Respondent does not own “PHILIPP PLEIN” formative trademarks, which could legitimate the registration of the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name is used to offer for sale alleged Philipp Plein’s clothing, footwear, and other items. The website to which the Disputed domain name redirects displays in a prominent position the Philipp Plein wordmark and figurative mark.\r\n\r\nIt is very significant noting, that the Respondent is also using the original images of Philipp Plein’s past and actual advertising campaigns. This circumstance increases the likelihood of confusion for the relevant consumer and constitutes a clear violation of the Complainant’s copyright.\r\n\r\nIt is clear in the opinion of Complainant 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 of the distinctive character and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and unduly seeking to profit from the Complainant's goodwill for its own financial gain.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name which contains a very well-known third party’s trademark without any sort of authorization. The Respondent could not ignore the existence of the PHILIPP PLEIN trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed domain name, not only because PHILIPP PLEIN is a very well-known trademark, but also in consideration of the nature of the Disputed domain name (entirely containing the Complainant’s trademark and name) and of the websites’ contents.\r\n\r\nAs far as use in bad faith is concerned, the Complainant notes that the Disputed domain name links to a website offering alleged “Philipp Plein” goods, and unduly depicting copyright pictures taken from the Complainant’s official website. The website also features the Complainant’s figurative and verbal trademarks, in connection with conflicting goods. This kind of 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, very similar to the official one, offering for sale conflicting goods. On the other side, consumers share confidential information when they pay the purchased goods, with the concrete risk that this information is stolen and used fraudulently 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 website, 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.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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": "The Panel is 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": [
        "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-06-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n(i) Philipp Plein International Registration No. 794860, extended, among others, to China, of December 13, 2002, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 28;\r\n\r\n(ii) PP PHILIPP PLEIN device, EU Registration No. 012259503, filed on October 28th , 2013 and registered on March 24, 2014, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28;\r\n\r\n(iii) Philipp Plein EU Registration No. 002966505, filed on December 6, 2002 and registered on January 21, 2005 for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PHILIPPPLEIN-SHOP.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}