{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106206",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-02-20 12:34:25",
    "domain_names": [
        "patekphilippe.company"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "PATEK PHILIPPE SA GENEVE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Lucie PREVOST (Cabinet Vidon, Marques & Juridique PI)",
    "respondent": [
        "steven  williams"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant, PATEK PHILIPPE SA GENEVE, is a luxury watch company, founded in 1839. The company maintains over 300 retail locations globally and a dozen distributors across the world.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant is the owner of the registered international wordmark PATEK PHILIPPE in several classes since 1972.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant also owns the domain names &lt;patek.com&gt; and &lt;patekphilippe.com&gt; leading to the Complainant&rsquo;s official website.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The disputed domain name &lt;<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">patekphilippe.company<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&gt; was registered on May 24, 2021<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links.<\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a trademark in which it has rights.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>no authorization has been given to the Respondent, in any form, to use the &ldquo;PATEK PHILIPPE&rdquo; sign, nor to register a domain name including the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks;<\/li>\n<li>the Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the disputed domain name as the latter resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links;<\/li>\n<li>the fact that the Respondent chose to hide its identity is a proof of a use without <em>bona fide<\/em> of the domain name.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the Respondent knew or should have known about the complainant&rsquo;s trademark rights, due to its distinctiveness, its wide scope of activities and renown;<\/li>\n<li>the choice of the extension &ldquo;.company&rdquo; participates to the Respondent's bad faith in the course of the registration, as it let the consumers believe that it has been registered by the Complainant himself;<\/li>\n<li>the disputed domain name leads to a parking page including PPC links, which is an indication in favour of Respondent's bad faith;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">a search within the UDRP Decision databases (CAC and WIPO) enables to identify three cases, in which respondent is identified as \"Steven Williams\". Transfer of the domain name has been decided in all three cases. The fact that the name used by the Registrant is quite common does not enable to affirm with certainty the same person is behind the three identified cases and the present one. However, at least, it constitutes a serious indication of pattern of conduct insofar as the name and the country mentioned in these three decisions are identical to those of the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under Policy were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-04-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant is the holder of several trademarks including the following:<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>PATEK PHILIPPE, international wordmark mark No. 394802 registered on December 21, 1972 in classes 9, 14, 16 and 34;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>PATEK PHILIPPE, Swiss wordmark mark No. P-396660 registered on October 21, 1992, in classes 9, 14, 16 and 34;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>PATEK PHILIPPE, United States wordmark mark No. 6971424 registered on February 7, 2023 in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 35, 37.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "patekphilippe.company": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}