{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103692",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-04-29 09:57:35",
    "domain_names": [
        "rogervivier-paris.com",
        "rogervivierparis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ROGER VIVIER S.P.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "Wang junshan"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIn light of the Respondent’s registration in 2014 and use of the disputed domain names, confusingly similar to its registered and well-known trademark ROGER VIVIER, the Complainant instructed its representative to address to the Respondent a cease and desist letter in order to notify them of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use, and the transfer, of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe cease and desist letter was therefore sent on February 19, 2021 to the domain names´ owner’s known email addresses indicated at that time in the website and in the whois records retrieved in the whois history database. The domain name owners did not deem appropriate to answer.\r\n\r\nIn light of the absence of a reply and the failure to comply with the request for transfer of the disputed domain names, the Complainant instructed its representative to file the present Complaint in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names under its ownership and control.",
    "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",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "Request for Change of Languages: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the language of this administrative proceeding be English pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a): Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. Complainant makes this request in light of the potential Chinese language Registration Agreement of the disputed domain names involved in this Complaint.\r\nParagraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. UDRP Panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios were summarized into WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 4.5.1. In this particular instance, the Complainant tried to request a change of languages of proceedings in light of the Chinese language Registration Agreement by showing that 1) disputed domain names <rogervivierparis.com> and <rogervivier-paris> are formed in Latin characters and the Roger Vivier trademark is a well-known international trademark; 2) websites corresponding to the domain names are in English; 3) conducting the proceeding in languages other than Chinese would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and unnecessarily burden the Complainant. Relevant decisions have been cited to support the Complainant’s positions.\r\n\r\nIn light of the scenarios and equity, the Panel is of the view that conducting the proceeding in English is unlikely to heavily burden the Respondent, and it is likely that the Respondent can understand the English language based on a preponderance of evidence test. Without further objection from the Respondent on the issue, the Panel will proceed to issue the decision in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Carrie Shang"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, Roger Vivier S.p.A. is a company with headquarters in Sant’Elpidio al Mare, FM (ITALY). Roger Vivier S.p.A. is known around the world as one of most prominent high-end fashion and luxury industry.\r\nThe first boutique of the brand was established in Paris, France, in 1937 by a young French fashion designer Monsieur Roger Henri Vivier (13 November 1903 - 3 October 1998) who specialized in shoes. Worldwide, he is known as the “Fabergé of footwear” or the “Fragonard of The Shoe”.\r\n\r\nOn August 29th, 1968 the figurative mark “Roger Vivier Boutique” was given worldwide trademark protection through numerous national and international trademark registrations.Currently the company actively designs a wide range of luxury products such as shoes, bags and women accessories distributed all around the world via the official website and through more than 60 prestigious Boutiques. As of 2018 the company released a worldwide turnover of 179 million €.\r\n\r\nNow, Roger Vivier S.p.A. is the owner of various trademark registrations: \r\n- the International trademark n° 348577 for the figurative mark “Roger Vivier Boutique” (registered on 1968-08-29) designating goods in classes 3,18, 21, 25; \r\n- the International trademark extended in China n° 590402 for the figurative mark “ROGER VIVIER” (registered on 1992-08-05) designating goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 34, 42; \r\n- the European Union trademark n° 006349138 for the word mark “Roger Vivier” (registered on 2008-10-17) designating goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 42; \r\n- the International trademark n° 1022702 for the figurative mark “RV Roger Vivier” (registered on 2009-08-20) designating goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18,24, 25, 35; \r\n- the International trademark extended in China n° 1120203 for the word mark “VIVIER” (registered on 2012-05-14) designating goods in classes 9, 14; \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant has been extensively using the “ROGER VIVIER” denomination on all internet environments including and not limited to the company’s official websites – among which are “www.rogervivier.com”, \"rogervivier.net\", \"rogervivier.org\", \"rogervivier.info\", \"rogervivier.biz\", “rogervivier.it” and its official accounts on the major social networks such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ROGERVIVIER-PARIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ROGERVIVIERPARIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}