The Complainant is a French company engaged in the provision of ready-to-wear clothing collections and accessories for women that trades under the commercial name and trademark SÉZANE, which invokes the name of the founder and President of the business Morgane Sezalory.<\/p>\n
It is the owner of several trademarks which it uses in its business, notably the International trademark for SEZANE No. 1170876 registered on June 3, 2013 referred to above.<\/p>\n
It is also the owner of numerous domain names that include the name of the SÉZANE business, such as <sezane.com> which was registered on April 3, 2003 and which it uses in its business.<\/p>\n
It has come to the notice of the Complainant that the disputed domain name was registered on August 31, 2022 and that it has been used to divert internet users to a parking page used to promote similar businesses with similar products to those of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
This is deleterious to the Complainant’s business and it has therefore filed this Complaint to obtain the transfer of the registration of the disputed domain name from the Respondent to itself.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SÉZANE Trademark in which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n That is so because it includes the entirety of the trademark and adds to it a hyphen and the generic word “boutique”. The addition of this generic word to the trademark cannot negate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark because the overall impression of the domain name is still that it is connected with the trademark. Also, the gTLD “.com” in the domain name is not taken into account in making this comparison.<\/p>\n The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. The Complainant must first make out a prima facie case and, if it is made out, the onus of proof then moves to the Respondent to disprove this element. The prima facie case is made out in the present proceeding because the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not affiliated with or authorised by the Complaint to register or use the disputed domain name and it has no business with the Complainant. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage featuring products of the same genre as those produced by the Complainant under its trademark.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so because the facts show that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s intention therefore must have been to create confusion with the Complainant and its mark, particularly as the word “boutique” is a French word and the renown of the Complainant is such that it is well-known as a French company.<\/p>\n Moreover, the registration of a confusingly similar domain name and using it for third parties’ advertisements and links show bad faith registration and use of the domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant has made out its case by the foregoing and the disputed domain name should therefore be transferred to the Complainant. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding.<\/p>",
"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).<\/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 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 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": [
"Neil Brown"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-09 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has established by evidence that it is the registered owner of the International trademark for SÉZANE, registered No. 11708 and registered on June 3, 2013. The evidence is a certification of the registration of the trademark provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization which the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.<\/p>\n The Complainant has therefore established its standing to bring this proceeding<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"sezane-boutique.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}