{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104097", "time_of_filling": "2022-03-22 13:46:03", "domain_names": [ "daniellington.shop" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Daniel Wellington AB" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "Tessie Anderson " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a manufacturer of timepieces on which it uses the DANIEL WELLINGTON trademark and is the owner of the portfolio of trademark registrations identified above.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also incorporates the DANIEL WELLINGTON mark as part of its company name and has an established Internet presence using its domain name , created on February 16, 2011.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on May 25, 2021, and resolves to a website which prominently displays the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark and purportedly offers for sale a number of the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON-branded products.\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nFACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent’s registered disputed domain name is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant's trademark DANIEL WELLINGTON. Essentially, exactly reproduces the Complainant's well-known trademark DANIEL WELLINGTON, with the mere deletion of the letters “wel” from the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark, which according to the Complainant amounts to a case of “typosquatting”.\r\n\r\nBearing in mind the close similarity between the two domain names and the use of the disputed domain name to purportedly offer for sale a number of the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON-branded products, the Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because it believed that it was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name also incorporates the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”, which does not have the capacity to dispel confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. It is important to highlight that gTLDs are commonly viewed as a standard registration requirement, and as such, they are disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11). \r\n\r\n• The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name, and any use of the DANIEL WELLINGTON mark has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-fashion house to use the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, there is no doubt that the disputed domain name seeks to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark, misleading consumers into thinking that the website is operated by or affiliated with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that:\r\n\r\n- there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or by the term “daniellingon”. In fact, the registrar verification shows that the owner is called Tessie Andersson located in Spain;\r\n\r\n- there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent owns any identical or similar trademarks to the disputed domain name or to the term “daniellington”;\r\n\r\n- the term “daniellington” does not have any meaning in English or Icelandic language;\r\n\r\n- the disputed domain name resolves to a website in the Italian language which displays the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON registered trademark and purportedly offers for sale a number of the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON-branded products;\r\n\r\n- the disputed domain name resolves to a website on which footwear and accessories bearing the Complainants’ trademarks are sold;\r\n\r\n- the composition and the use of the disputed domain name, which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark and resolves to the website which displays the DANIEL WELLINGTON mark on top, offering for sale DANIEL WELLINGTON-branded goods, reinforce the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, as consumers would assume that the disputed domain name is a URL for one of the Complainant’s websites.\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. The Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark was registered and has been in use worldwide well before the registration of the disputed domain name. Considering that the disputed domain name almost reproduces in full the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark, and that Internet users commonly associate “DANIEL WELLINGTON” and “daniellington” with the Complainant, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of Complainant and Complainant’s mark when the disputed domain name was registered.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provides that this case appears to be a case of typosquatting and typosquatting itself can be considered as an additional argument in favour of finding bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nSince the disputed domain name resolves to a website which prominently displayed the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark and purportedly offers for sale a number of the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON-branded products, these facts support the inference that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that in view of the above, the Respondent is using without permission the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark in order to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s DANIEL WELLINGTON mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or goods or services offered on it, which amounts to registration and use in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy.", "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.", "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": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Founded in 2011 by Mr Filip Tysander, Daniel Wellington AB (the Complainant) is a Swedish fashion company focused on designing and manufacturing watches, jewellery and accessories.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner, among others, of an international portfolio of trademark registrations for the trademark “DANIEL WELLINGTON”:\r\n\r\n- International Trademark nº 1135742 DANIEL WELLINGTON (word mark), registered on July 3, 2012, in international classes 9, 14 and 35. The trademark designates, inter alia, Iceland;\r\n- International Trademark nº 1260501 DW Daniel Wellington (word mark), registered on March 11, 2015, in international classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35. The trademark designates, inter alia, Iceland;\r\n- European Union (“EU”) Trademark nº 010553345 DANIEL WELLINGTON (word mark), registered on June 7, 2012, in international classes 9, 14 and 35;\r\n- United States Trademark nº 4386043 DANIEL WELLINGTON (word mark), registered on August 20, 2013, in international classes 14 and 35; and\r\n- United States of America Trademark nº 4948629 DW DANIEL WELLINGTON (word mark), registered on May 3, 2016, in international classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the domain name , registered in 2011 and has also a significant social media platform presence, including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.", "decision_domains": { "DANIELLINGTON.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }