{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103450",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-12-08 09:58:02",
    "domain_names": [
        "simonesoldes.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SIMONE PERELE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Liling Weng"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent purports to sell \"SIMONE PERELE\" products on its website associated with the disputed domain name. This is shown by screenshots comparing the Complainant's website with the Respondent's site. In the screenshots of the latter, copies can furthermore be seen of the Complainant's own site layout, logo (in the form \"SIMONE PERELE PARIS\") and product catalogue images and descriptions. Both sites are in French.\r\n\r\nNo licence or authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nA test purchase conducted by a bailiff on the Complainant's behalf, which was adduced in evidence, shows that when a product was ordered via the Respondent's website and paid for, it was not delivered. Instead, the Respondent sent a completely different product bearing another brand to the person assisting the bailiff for the test purchase.\r\n\r\nThe contact email address given on the Respondent's website, “helpdesk@customerservicebest.com”, is used for scamming purposes in other instances, as shown by a fraud alert to consumers posted online by a third-party scam review website.",
    "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe term \"SIMONE\" in the disputed domain name makes reference to the name of Complainant and is confusingly similar to it. Addition of the term \"SOLDES\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, addition of the French term \"SOLDES\" (“sales”) in the disputed domain name increases the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and activity because “SOLDES” refers to the Complainant's trading activity. Previous Panels have held that the addition of words can worsen the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name (for example, WIPO Case No. D2010-2124, Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. v. Kenneth Terril).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent's use of the disputed domain name with its website in the circumstances described does not grant the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Case No. D2019-1048 CuraLife LTD v. Domain Protection Services, Inc. \/ Robert Anderson).\r\n\r\nInstead of the Respondent having any right or legitimate interest in the use of the Complainant's brand, the purchase test conducted on the Complainant's behalf provides proof that the Respondent's website is used to send other products to consumers than those ordered. The product sent by the Respondent bears the brand \"VERSACE\", meaning that this cannot be an instance of order error because the online store associated with the disputed domain name purports to sell only the Complainant's products.\r\n\r\nThis proof confirms that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purpose of attracting internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Complainant invokes the UDRP and Decisions by several previous ADR Panels in making this claim.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant in the course of its contentions clarifies that it cannot be excluded that the Respondent may be reselling some genuine products of the Complainant that have been placed on the market, but contends that this circumstance neither creates a legitimate interest in registering and using the disputed domain name nor dispels the element of bad faith demonstrated in this case.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "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 the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a Decision.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant invoked but did not adduce evidence for European trademark No.13026216 for \"SP SIMONE PERELE PARIS\". Normally, such an omission could be to the detriment of a Complainant's case if the evidence in question is significant in establishing the basis for deciding the case. In this instance, the Panel records that the mention of the additional trademark adds little that is material in this Proceeding. The omission does not therefore affect the Panel's appreciation of the evidence substantiating the Complainant's rights as a whole.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-01-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks. The Complainant adduced evidence for the following:\r\n- International trademark No. 272755 for “SIMONE PERELE”, registered on 9 August 1963 in Class 25 under the Nice Classification;\r\n- European trademark No. 4367512 for “SIMONE PERELE”, registered on 30 March 2005 in class 25; and\r\n- European trademark No. 18269546 for \"SIMONE & SIMONE PERELE\", registered on 8 July in classes 24, 25 and 26.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adduced evidence showing that it is also the registrant of the domain name <simone-perele.com> registered on 7 August 1997.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant claimed, without providing evidence, that it holds other trade marks and mentioned specifically a European trademark No.13026216 for \"SP SIMONE PERELE PARIS\", registered on 24 June 2014.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name <simonesoldes.com> on 15 July 2020.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SIMONESOLDES.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}