{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105382", "time_of_filling": "2023-04-20 10:01:10", "domain_names": [ "buychanel4u.com " ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Cecilia Borgenstam (CHANEL, INC.)" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "shi min Fan" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant’s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a subsidiary of the Chanel group, a world leader in creating, developing and manufacturing luxury products.<\/p>\n

The Chanel group was founded at the beginning of the last century and, at the end of 2021, reported global revenues in excess of USD 15bn. It offers a broad range of products, including ready-to-wear, leather goods, fashion accessories, eyewear, fragrances, makeup, skincare, jewellery and watches.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent’s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant’s factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <buychanel4u.com> (‘the disputed domain name’).<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. Complainant’s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark CHANEL, in so far as the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety. The addition of the dictionary terms ‘buy’ and ‘4u’ are insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark CHANEL. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Neither licence nor authorisation, consent, permission or acquiescence has been given to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark in connection with the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which provides gambling services, and such use is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, owing to the following indicia:<\/p>\n

• The trade mark CHANEL is well-known and has been in use well before the registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n

• The Complainant previously owned the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n

 • A simple search via online trade mark registers or through Google search engine would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and the CHANEL trade mark, such that it is impossible to believe that the Respondent did not have the Complainant in mind at the time of registration of the disputed domain name; and<\/p>\n

• Paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (‘WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0’) provides that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trade mark - as is the case here - by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.<\/p>\n

Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent’s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant’s submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP 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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trademarks, amongst others:<\/p>\n

• United States trade mark registration no. 195360, registered on 24 February 1925, for the word mark CHANEL, in class 3 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

• United States trade mark registration no. 1079438, registered on 13 December 1977, for the word mark CHANEL, in class 25 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further relies on national and international trade marks held by the Complainant’s parent company.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter, individually or collectively ‘the Complainant’s trade mark’; ‘the Complainant’s trade mark CHANEL; or ‘the trade mark CHANEL’ interchangeably).<\/p>\n

The Complainant advises that prior UDRP panels have recognised the reputation and well-known nature of the trade mark CHANEL (eg Chanel v Lequang Chau, WIPO Case No. D2021-4287, in respect of the domain name <nuochoachanell.com>).<\/p>\n

At the time of writing this decision, the disputed domain name <buychanel4u.com> resolves to a web page which features the following warning notice ‘365 website builder reminds you: please install the program first! 365 website building system UTF8 version 20230418’, the particulars of which are discussed further below, under the section ‘Principal reasons for the decision’ (‘the Respondent’s website’).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "buychanel4u.com ": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }