{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105293", "time_of_filling": "2023-03-24 08:47:28", "domain_names": [ "monclerargentina.com", "monclerathens.com", "moncleraustria.com", "monclerbelgium.com", "monclerchile.com", "monclercolombia.com", "monclerdenmark.com", "monclerdeutschland.com", "monclergreece-outlet.com", "monclerhrvatskas.com", "moncler-israel.com", "moncleritalia.com", "monclermalaysia.com", "moncler-mexico.com", "monclernederland.com", "monclernorgesalg.com", "moncleromania.com", "moncleroutletireland.com", "moncleroutletschweizs.com", "monclerphilippines.com", "monclerpolska.com", "monclerportugals.com", "monclersaleusa.com", "monclersingapore.com", "monclerslovenskos.com", "monclersouthafrica.com", "monclersrbija.com", "monclersuomis.com", "monclerturkey.com", "moncleruae.com", "monclerukonline.com", "monclersveriges.com", "monclerhungarys.com", "monclernz.com", "monclerslovensko.com", "monclerdanmark.com", "moncleroutletschweiz.com", "moncler-schweiz.com", "monclerromanias.com", "monclerromania.com", "moncler-hungary.com", "moncleraustralia.com", "monclercanadaoutlet.com", "monclercz.com", "monclerfranceonline.com", "moncler-greece.com", "monclergreeceoutlet.com", "monclerhrvatska.com", "monclerhungary.com", "monclernorge.com", "moncleroutletonlinesito.com", "monclerportugal.com", "monclersaleuk.com", "monclerstore.top", "monclersuomi.com", "monclersverige.com", "moncler-hk.com", "monclers-jp.top", "monclertruekey.top", "xn--monclerespaa-khb.com", "moncler-jackets-sale.com", "moncleroffcial.com", "monclersofficial.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Moncler S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "Web Commerce Communications Limited", "wang", "wu hai yan", "shang hai chu qi xin xi ke ji you xian gong si", "Dreher Marko", "li duo", "feng guo hao" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a company based in Milan, Italy which manufactures luxury sport equipment and outerwear. It was established 1952 in Monestier-de-Clermont, France, with a focus on clothing for mountain sports. In 1968, the Complainant became the official supplier to the French downhill ski team. In the early 2000s, the Complainant began to expand globally within the luxury goods segment. On 16 of December 2013, the Moncler Group was floated on Italian Stock Exchange of Milan. The Complainant is currently the official formalwear partner of Italian football club Inter Milan.

The disputed domain names were registered on various dates during the years 2022 and 2023, and according to the Complainant resolved to active websites which offer for sale and advertise for sale products which also bear the MONCLER mark.

On March 2, 2023, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Registrars of all the disputed domain names but did not receive any reply.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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>\n

Preliminary Issues: Multiple Respondents<\/sup><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Complainant has requested the consolidation of 63 disputed domain names in a single Complaint.  <\/p>\n

UDRP Rule 3(c) provides that “The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.“ The Panel has the general power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. See UDRP Rule 10(e).<\/p>\n

A significant number of decisions has been issued in relation to consolidation of multiple domain names. From these Panels have come to develop the test of common control to determine if two or more disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. The Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions summarized that “where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. When determining if multiple disputed domain names are subject to common control the Panel must also ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and efficiency. See UDRP Rules 10 (b) and (c). The Panel should review the evidence in its totality in assessing if to consolidate multiple disputed domain names in a single Complaint.<\/p>\n

The Panel notes the following evidence in relation to the disputed domain names when it considered the consolidation of the disputed domain names:<\/p>\n