{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104947", "time_of_filling": "2022-10-25 10:18:44", "domain_names": [ "sezaneoutlet-paris.shop" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BENDA BILI" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "grimm tessa" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a company specialized in ready-to-wear collections and accessories for women and trading under its commercial name and trademark SEZANE. The term “SEZANE” is a contraction of the first name and last name of the Complainant’s founder and President Morgane Sézalory. SEZANE’s clothing and accessories are available only through its online shop.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names comprising the wording “SEZANE”, such as the domain name <sezane.com> registered on 3 April 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 19 October 2022 and resolves to an online store selling SEZANE clothes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name, and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions: <\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and its domain names associated. The addition of the terms “OUTLET” and “PARIS” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark “SEZANE”. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “SEZANE”. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated.  It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the New gTLD “.SHOP” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant then points to established case law on prima facie case and reversing of burden of proof to the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not identified as the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks “SEZANE” or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and to attract users by impersonating the Complainant. Impersonation of a complainant, by using its trademark in a disputed domain name and seeking to defraud or confuse users, indicates a lack of rights or legitimate interests by a Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name includes the distinctive trademark “SEZANE”. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Respondent used a privacy registration service and fictitious underlying registration data to register a domain name corresponding to the Complainant’s registered mark without authorization and is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant, promote counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products, and likely engage in other fraudulent activities. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

By using the domain name, the Complainant contends that 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.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-11-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n