{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104389", "time_of_filling": "2022-03-02 09:47:08", "domain_names": [ "zinodavidoff.xyz " ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Zino Davidoff SA" ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "QINGRU LIU" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presented that it is incorporated in Switzerland and is a leading producer of fragrances, handbags, eyewear, as well as exclusive timepieces, writing instruments and leather accessories and other goods that enjoy a high reputation and use brands ZINO DAVIDOFF \/ DAVIDOFF. The Complainant and its trademarks enjoy a high reputation around the world, including China, where the Respondent is domiciled, due to the Complainant’s long-term use and publicity. The Complainant’s goods are also often sold on the flights to and from China and appear among others in in-flight catalogues and magazines. Therefore, numerous passengers (including a number of Chinese passengers) have a very convenient way to directly access the Complainant’s goods. In 2021, the Complainant had around 80 stores throughout China's major cities and its products were sold on popular online malls such as JD.com.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark registrations (international trademark ZINO DAVIDOFF no. 467511 and trademark DAVIDOFF in Chinese translation no. G467510) predates the disputed domain name registration by several years. The Complainant also owns various registrations for domain names that include its trademarks such as or . The Complainant also operates its website in the Chinese language.\r\n\r\nA. THE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark ZINO DAVIDOFF \/ DAVIDOFF in its entirety, which directly refers to the Complainant and its business activities. The addition of the gTLD “.xyz” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant and the Respondent have never had any previous relationships, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent with any rights to use the trademark in any forms, including the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has interest over the disputed domain name. When searched for “ZINO DAVIDOFF” in the Google and Baidu (the leading search engine in China), the returned results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would have quickly learnt that the trademarks are owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks in China and many other countries worldwide. In addition, according to the registrar verification, the Respondent is an individual named “LIUQINGRU”, which is not related to the Complainant nor to the term “ZINO DAVIDOFF” in any form.\r\n\r\nBy the time the Complainant prepared this Complaint on 28 February 2022, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for 955 USD or for leasing for 107 USD\/month. The Respondent has not been using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nWhen Internet users, who search for information about the Complainant and\/or about the brand “ZINO DAVIDOFF”, see the disputed domain name and the website under construction, would very likely be confused and be led to believe that the disputed domain name is somehow related to the Complainant and be disappointed as they would not find the information as expected – which will lead to trademark tarnishment for the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFrom the Complainant’s perspective, the Respondent deliberately chose to incorporate the well-known trademark ZINO DAVIDOFF in the disputed domain name, very likely with the intention to attract Internet traffic by benefiting from the Complainant’s worldwide renown.\r\n\r\nC. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nMost of Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name. Considering the renown of the Complainant and its trademark, and the overall composition of the disputed domain name, i.e. using the term “ZINO DAVIDOFF” in its entirety which refers directly to the Complainant and its business activities, it follows that the use of the well-known trademark ZINO DAVIDOFF \/ DAVIDOFF in the disputed domain name is a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights and reputation.\r\n\r\nConsidering the facts that the Respondent very likely knew about the Complainant and its trademark the Complainant’s trademark is a well-known trademark worldwide and in China where the Respondent resides and the Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name shall be deemed as registered in bad faith, which is supported by WIPO Overview 3.0, para. 3.1.1. and para.3.1.4.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant noted that the Respondent has been listing the disputed domain name for sale for 955 USD or for leasing for 107 USD\/month, which is excessive to its out-of-pocket expenses. Obviously, as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent “has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.”\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter and followed-up by sending a reminder. However, until the time the Complainant prepared this Complaint, it has not received response from the Respondent.", "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.", "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": [ "JUDr. Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark “ZINO DAVIDOFF”, registration number 467511, registered from 27 January 1982 in classes 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25 and 33. \r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of domain name registered since 20 April 1998. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 4 January 2022.", "decision_domains": { "ZINODAVIDOFF.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }