{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104696", "time_of_filling": "2022-07-07 11:32:27", "domain_names": [ "lovehoneygroup.net" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Lovehoney Group Limited  " ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "Amanda Lee" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, founded in 2002, is the largest British company selling sex toys, lingerie and erotic gifts on the Internet continuing to grow rapidly across the world as a retailer, manufacturer and distributor. The Complainant has over 400 own brand products and exclusive licenses to design, manufacture and sell featured adult pleasure products. The Complainant employs around 300 people and their headquarters are open seven days a week selling products to 46 countries in Europe, North America and Australasia through nine web-sites. The Complainant focuses on exceptional customer service, product innovation, website usability and creative marketing to always be at the forefront of developments in sexual wellbeing and ecommerce.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s company, website and the products the company sells have received numerous awards (https:\/\/www.lovehoney.co.uk\/) including the Best Customer Service Award for online retailers at the eCommerce Awards for Excellence, Queen’s Award for Enterprise in International Trade (2021), Best Online Retailer (2020), International Pleasure Products Company of The Year (2020) and many other. The Complainant is also rated as ‘Excellent’ in over 80,000 customer reviews on Trustpilot, the renown independent review website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also enjoys a strong online presence via its official websites and social medias. Due to extensive use and advertising, the Complainant’s on-line shops are easily recognized by the consumers. \r\n\r\n\r\nApart from the listed Trademarks, the Complainant has online presence through the following official websites:\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.lovehoney.com\r\nhttps:\/\/www.lovehoney.eu\r\nhttps:\/\/www.lovehoneygroup.com\r\nhttps:\/\/www.lovehoney.co.uk\r\n\r\n\r\nSince 2002 the Complainant operates under the name Lovehoney Group Limited which became trade identifier of the Complainant and is its business name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “LOVEHONEY”, for example, (created on October 30, 1998); (created on March 14, 2012); (created on December 5, 2001); (created on September 8, 2008). Complainant uses these domain names to connect to websites through which it informs potential customers about its LOVEHONEY mark and its products and services. \r\n\r\n\r\nAccording to the evidence presented before the Panel, the disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2022, and until April 25, 2022 resolved to a Registrar’s (Godaddy’s) Domain Parking website with PPC links. \r\n\r\nBy the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to parked page at GoDaddy\/Afternic, where the disputed domain name seems to be available for its purchase. ", "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": "The Respondent did not submit its Response replying to Complainant's contentions.\r\n\r\nLanguage of Proceedings. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested English as the language of the proceedings, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the UDRP Rules, where unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, exercising its “discretion in the spirit of fairness to both parties, which pursuant to paragraph 10(b) of the Rules have to be treated with equality, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs” (see Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242379769 \/ Le Berre, WIPO Case No. D2018-1552). \r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n1) The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks LOVEHONEY due to it is incorporated in its entirety along with the very term “group” which not only is a common term but also directly refer to the trade name of the Complainant – Lovehoney Group Ltd. and that therefore is closely relevant to the Complainant’s business. That, LOVEHONEY trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. That, previous UDRP panels have constantly held that the mere addition of a descriptive term would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to a trademark (see WhatsApp Inc. v. Gil David, WIPO Case No. D2019-1284; Novartis AG v. Black Roses, CAC No. 102137). Also that, according to the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 para. 1.8 which states: Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements.\r\n\r\n2) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name due to it was created on March 20, 2022, many years after the registrations of the Complainant’s LOVEHONEY trademarks. \r\n\r\n3) That the Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right or license to use LOVEHONEY trademark including within the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form or has endorsed or sponsored the Respondent or the Respondent's website.\r\n\r\n4) That there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademark including the terms “lovehoneygroup.net”.\r\n\r\n5) That when searching for the term “lovehoney” or “lovehoney group” or “lovehoneygroup.net” in popular Internet search engines like Google.com, the vast majority of the results relate to Complainant’s official websites or websites directly referring to the Complainant and their products. That, when conducting searches on online trademark databases, no information was found in relation with trademarks corresponding to “lovehoney group” or “lovehoneygroup.net”. That, there were also no trademarks found in the name of the Respondent. \r\n\r\n6) The Complainant sent Cease and Desist Letter to the Respondent and received response coming from the e-mail address ricker_xu@qq.com. The Complainant also conducted search by the e-mail address of the Respondent and the terms of disputed domain name and found no relevant results that would show that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. In addition, by searching the e-mail as of Respondent as disclosed by the Registrar 157684508@qq.com and the terms of disputed domain name there was no information found showing that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. Similarly, by searching by the name of the Respondent “Amanda Lee” and the terms, no results are found.\r\n\r\n7) That at the time the Complainant found out about the disputed domain name (April 2022) it used to resolve to Pay Per Click Page displaying links such as “Consulting Services”, “Investment Services” and others. Such use of the aforesaid disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion in Internet users’ mind and may have led them to click on sponsored links displayed on the PPC page, action which generates revenues for the Respondent. PPC pages aim at generating revenues by diverting Internet traffic to sponsored links. PPC pages generate revenues when Internet users click on the links displayed on the page. Where such links are based on trademark value, UDRP panels have tended to consider such practices generally as unfair use resulting in misleading diversion (see Camilla Australia Pty Ltd v. Domain Admin, Mrs Jello, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-1593).\r\n\r\n8) At the time of filing of this Complaint the disputed domain name resolves to parked page at GoDaddy\/Afternic stating that the domain name is available for sale. That, from the Complainant’s perspective, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use the disputed domain name nor is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, so as to confer a right or legitimate interest in it in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i).\r\n\r\n9) The Complainant also assert that, there is no “evidence that the Respondent engages in, or has engaged in any activity or work, i.e., legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name, that demonstrates a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name” (see Bollore v. Tywonia W Hill, WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0012). That the disputed domain name has therefore not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.\r\n\r\n10) Since there is no evidence that the Respondent has been making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name nor is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, it is likely that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the intention to obtain commercial gain by offering the domain name for sale. \r\n\r\n11) Furthermore, the Complainant tried to reach the Respondent by sending cease and desist letter on April 24, 2022, via the abuse contact of the Registrar. The Complainant also tried to reach out to the Respondent by sending on-line form as provided by the Registrar for contacting the registrants. The same day the Complainant received a response coming from the e-mail address ricker_xu@qq.com with the following text: “Hello, I own the domain name lovehoneygroup.net. Are you interested in it?”.\r\n\r\n12) The Complainant further replied to the e-mail by inserting the text of the Cease and Desist in the body of the e-mail and sent it on May 16, 2022. There was no further response to the e-mails from the Respondent despite reminders from the Complainant. The Respondent chose not to reply to the Cease and Desist letter with any compelling arguments which infers bad faith (see International Business Machines Corporation v. Adam Stevenson, Global Domain Services, WIPO Case No. D2016-1695; Carrefour v. PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC \/ Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2018-2201).\r\n\r\n13) Furthermore, the WhoIs associated with the disputed domain name at the time of sending cease and desist letter and filling the complaint shows Privacy shield hiding the registrant’s identity and contact details. It is very likely that the Respondent was trying to conceal its identity which is further evidence of bad faith (see Avast Software s.r.o. v. Victor Chernyshov, CAC Case No. 101962).\r\n\r\n14) That, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, due to the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s LOVEHONEY trademarks, the trademark is valid in many countries of the world including in China where the Respondent is located. The Respondent has chosen to incorporate the trademark LOVEHONEY in the disputed domain name in its entirety along with the term “group” which together forms the business name of the Complainant – Lovehoney Group.\r\n\r\n15) That, by conducting a simple online search regarding the term “lovehoney”, “lovehoney group”, “lovehoneygroup.net” the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant and its mark. In the most popular search engines, the Complainant’s website or social media accounts or related topics will appear as top first results. As previously stated by UDRP panels, in such circumstances, the Respondent would have learnt about the Complaint, its mark and activities (see Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Abayomi Ajileye, CAC Case No. 102396) and “it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name” (See, Novartis AG v. Chenxinqi, Case No. 101918). As mentioned, the Complainant is very active on social media (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) to promote its mark, products and services and its LOVEHONEY trademark is easily recognized by consumers around the world. The Complainant is followed by 43,749 people on Facebook, on Instagram the Complainant is followed by 154 thousand followers, Twitter account is also popular among consumers and followed by 57,5 thousand people. (See, Laboratoires M&L v. Zhaoxingming, CAC Case No. 102277).\r\n\r\n16) It is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. On the contrary, it is very likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the trademark LOVEHONEY and the trade name LOVEHONEY GROUP intentionally in order to take advantage of reputation of the trademark and Complainant’s goodwill.\r\n\r\n17) It should be noted that the Respondent also registered other domain name targeting the Complainant’s trademark and namely the domain name also clearly referring to the Complainant. The Complainant has filed the Complaint and it is pending with CAC, Case No. 104549. Therefore, the Respondent knew the Complainant’s trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name and registered it in bad faith. ", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks 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": [ "Ms. MARÍA ALEJANDRA LÓPEZ GARCÍA" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, founded in 2022, is the largest British company selling sex toys, lingerie and erotic gifts on the Internet, and a worldwide retailer, manufacturer and distributor. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns the following Trademarks: \r\n\r\n- US trademark registration No. 3350209 LOVEHONEY registered on December 11, 2007, in force until December 13, 2027;\r\n \r\n- International trademark registration No. 1091529 LOVEHONEY registered on June 27, 2011, in force until June 27, 2031, designating Australia, Switzerland, China, Iceland, Japan, Norway, New Zeeland, Russian Federation and Singapore; \r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration No. 003400298 LOVEHONEY, filed on October 10, 2003, registered on January 17, 2005, in force until October 10, 2023. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2022, and resolves to a parked website where the disputed domain name seems to be available for its purchase.", "decision_domains": { "LOVEHONEYGROUP.NET": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }