The Complainant is a British streetwear clothing brand founded in 2014 by Jay Williams and a leader in streetwear inspired urban fashion, offering a wide range of products, but focused on tracksuits, and hoodies and other casual wear.<\/p>\n
On 7 March 2023, the 29 disputed domain names, the subject of this case, were registered by these 12 respondents, but all from the same geographic location, namely Central Singapore. Five different but similar IP addresses were used as follows: 165.231.253.42, 165.231.253.43, 165.231.253.44, 165.231.253.45 and 165.231.253.46. The disputed domain names were registered by three different registrars: 1.Paknic (Private) Limited, 2.NETIM SARL and 3. Gransy, s.r.o. At the time of filing the Complaint all twenty-nine (29) disputed domain names were active and resolved to the same websites, namely an online shop (in various languages) that appears to sell the Complainant’s clothing.<\/p>\n
The Complainant seeks to consolidate the cases against the 12 respondents. Only one respondent acknowledged service of the Complaint. By an email from <prauserichard@fotemail.com> that respondent stated that he has nothing to do with the matter or the disputed domain name. The others did not respond but appear to have been served at the emails given in the WHOIS information and so validly served under the UDRP and CAC rules. <\/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:<\/p>\n
1.Similarity<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s registered trademark with the addition of the following business-related terms:<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s trade mark is the dominant and distinctive element in the disputed domain names. The geographic and clothing related terms are generic or descriptive and therefore irrelevant for similarity and do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n
2.As to legitimate rights and interests, the Complainant denies these online stores are valid distributors or resellers making legitimate or fair use. It says the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the online shop(s) fail to satisfy the criteria in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2001–0903 which has the following conditions:<\/p>\n
The Complainant says as to condition (1), as the Respondent offers the goods at below market prices and due to the lack of any authorization or distributorship, it can be inferred that the Respondent is selling counterfeit versions. As to (2) it says the below-market prices evidence that these are counterfeit products. The online form login page appears to be an attempt to gather and phish customers’ personal information. As to (3) the Respondents do not disclose or disclaim their lack of relationship or connection to the Complainant anywhere on the website and there is a footer ‘’COPYRIGHT © 2023 HOODRICHUK.’. This information does not meet the Oki Data standard of “accurately and prominently” disclosing the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. As to (4) the Respondent tries to corner the market in the disputed domain names by use of the mark with geographic and clothing terms.<\/p>\n
3 As to Bad Faith, the Complainant says the disputed domain names are in use and resolve to a website on which customers can purchase clothes. The websites associated have the appearance of being official because they contain the Complainant’s trademark and they reproduce photographs – without permission – copied from the Complainant’s official website. Moreover, the website offers lower prices. This makes it very likely that internet users will assume that there is an association with the Complainant. The addition of the geographic and clothing related terms in the disputed domain names makes it likely that the impression given is that the webshops are affiliated with Complainant. The Respondents intentionally chose the disputed domain names, along with the geographic and clothing-related terms in order to try to generate more traffic to its own business.<\/p>\n
THE 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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victoria McEvedy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
<\/p>\n
The Complainant has a portfolio of various national and international registered marks. It relies on the following marks. <\/p>\n
1.Two UK national marks, numbers UK00906391049, registered in 2008, and UK00003360288, registered in 2019, both for the word mark, Hoodrich, in classes 18, 25 & 35.<\/p>\n
2.An EUTM, number 006391049, registered in 2008 for the word mark, Hoodrich, in classes 18, 25 &35.<\/p>\n
3.An international mark, number 1599630, applied for in 2021 in classes 18, 25 &35 in Albania, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Switzerland, China, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Serbia, Singapore, Thailand, Türkiye.<\/p>\n
It also has common law rights arising from use in those common law jurisdictions that recognize them.<\/p>\n