{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104760",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-08-01 09:06:01",
    "domain_names": [
        "isabel-marant.store"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "IM PRODUCTION"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Chengjun Yang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark “ISABEL MARANT” and its domain name, as it bears the Complainant’s trademark as a whole except for a hyphen, which is ignored in the comparison.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier decision WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., where it was decided that the top level “.com”, “.org” or “.net” is not relevant in deciding the similarity.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <isabel-marant.store> is identical to its well-known trademark ISABEL MARANT® and all Google results for the term “ISABEL MARANT” refers to the Complainant and its trademark. \r\n\r\nThus, it is stated that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The case of WIPO Case No. D2016-2097, IM Production v. Erica Wong was given as a reference (“The Panel is satisfied that the ISABEL MARANT trade mark is sufficiently well-known in China that, in all likelihood, the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant's trade mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered.”).\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith to create confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar domain name for a website offering counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products in direct competition. The cases as follows were provided as example:\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1612750, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy 4(b)(iv).”);\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1760517, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC (finding bad faith per Policy 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).\r\n\r\n\r\nBased on the above, the Complainant contends that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name with the only intention to attract for commercial gain internet users to the Respondent’s website as mentioned on CAC Case N° 104392, ZV HOLDING v. Luis Alberto Fernandez Garcia, or in CAC Case No. 104561, IM PRODUCTION v. Guilan Wei.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.",
    "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": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-09-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording “ISABEL MARANT” in several countries, such as the international trademark ISABEL MARANT® n° 1284453, registered since November 16th, 2015 and the European trademark ISABEL MARANT® n°001035534 registered since December 23rd, 1998.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ISABEL-MARANT.STORE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}