{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103097", "time_of_filling": "2020-06-02 10:39:04", "domain_names": [ "Daniel-wellington.com " ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Daniel Wellington AB" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA Law AB", "respondent": [ "Mohamed Benlekbir" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, Daniel Wellington AB, was founded in 2011 by Filip Tysander and Daniel Wellington is one of the fastest growing and most beloved brands in the fashion industry. Nowadays, the Complainant has a huge presence on various social media platforms 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds the international trademark registrations for “DANIEL WELLINGTON” (Registration n°1135742, 1260501 and 010553345) and the Complainant also holds domain names bearing “DANIEL WELLINGTON” or its abbreviation “DW” such as creation dated February 16, 2011, creation dated May 30, 2013, creation dated September 22, 2016 and creation dated September 1, 2016.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name and the domain name is currently inactive.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Daniel Wellington AB, was founded in 2011 by Filip Tysander and Daniel Wellington is one of the fastest growing and most beloved brands in the fashion industry. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds international trademark registrations for the trademark “DANIEL WELLINGTON” and also is the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “DANIEL WELLINGTON” such as and .\r\n\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “DANIEL WELLINGTON” as it bears the Complainant’s trademark as a whole.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the addition of the hyphen is not sufficient to abolish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the “DANIEL WELLINGTON” trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to CAC Case No. 102797 BNP PARIBAS v. Julio Jaime.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “DANIEL WELLINGTON”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) as well as CAC Case No. 102348 Manifattura Mario Colombo & C. Spa v. Convey srl.\r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is currently not active and states “this shop is unavailable”. Thus, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a way to create a perception on the visitors that the domain name was previously connected to an online shop.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name is listed for sale via the auction site Afternic.com. Therefore, the Complainant states that it is obvious that the Respondent is trying to earn money by using the Complainant’s reputation.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “DANIEL WELLINGTON” or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent has had the intention to run an online shop under the disputed domain name and it demonstrates the lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the “DANIEL WELLINGTON” is a well-known trademark in the fashion industry.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that taking into account the distinctive character and the well-known status of the “DANIEL WELLINGTON” trademark; the Respondent was aware of such trademark while registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is created by adding a hyphen to the well-known trademark “DANIEL WELLINGTON” which demonstrates the bad faith of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the bad faith of the Respondent is supported within the fact that the disputed domain name is inactive.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that prior Panel decisions have accepted the bad faith of the Respondent in similar cases such as WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows (“The concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to CAC Case No 101285 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG v. Huang ChaoQiong where the Panel held that “the offer for sale is already indicative of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith”. The same principle applies to the present case.\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": "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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-07-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the IR trademarks DANIEL WELLINGTON (Registration n°1135742, 1260501 and 010553345).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “DANIEL WELLINGTON” or its abbreviation “DW” such as creation dated February 16, 2011, creation dated May 30, 2013, creation dated September 22, 2016 and creation dated September 1, 2016.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also has a significant presence on several social media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "DANIEL-WELLINGTON.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }