{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106385", "time_of_filling": "2024-03-27 09:48:09", "domain_names": [ "lauraashleyeu.com " ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Laura Ashley IP Holdings, LLC " ], "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP", "respondent": [ "Carol Martin " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant, Laura Ashely IP Holdings, LLC supplies homeware, furniture and ladies fashion on a global basis, and in particular within the United Kingdom, throughout Europe and in the United States. The Complainant commercialises its products under 75 international stores and via e-commerce platforms operated by authorised commercial partners.<\/p>\n

The Complainant operates its activities through various websites, for example <www.lauraashleyusa.com<\/a>> and on well-known high street retailers such as <www.next.co.uk\/laura-ashley.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

The Complainant seeks to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name <lauraashleyeu.com> on the grounds set out in the section 'Parties Contentions A.2' below.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore made no factual allegations.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

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

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.1 Preliminary Matter<\/strong>: Language of the Proceeding<\/strong><\/p>\n

With respect to the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding, the Panel notes the following:<\/p>\n

• The Complaint is written in English;<\/p>\n

• The registrar's verification response provided that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese; and<\/p>\n

• Following the registrar's confirmation as to the language of the registration agreement, and at the request of CAC, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding, on the following grounds: (i) the disputed domain name contains Latin characters and not Chinese characters; (ii) the content on the Respondent's website was in English and prices were in euro currency; (iii) the Respondent's e-mail contains Latin characters and not Chinese characters; (iv) the Respondent is a US resident; and (v) the translation of the Complaint into Chinese would cause additional expense and unwarranted delay.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 Substantive grounds<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.1 The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <lauraashleyeu.com> makes use of a mark which is materially identical to the Complainant's trade mark LAURA ASHLEY, without its authorisation or permission.  <\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name in so far as the use of the trade mark LAURA ASHLEY therein implies that there is a commercial relationship between the Parties when there is none. The Complainant has nothing to do with the disputed domain name nor the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent's website is most likely being used to defraud third parties.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2<\/strong>.3<\/strong> The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

It is inconceivable that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent did not know of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, particularly as the disputed domain name is materially identical to the trade mark LAURA ASHLEY.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent purposefully used the trade mark LAURA ASHLEY fraudulently to deceive the public into a mistaken belief that the disputed domain name is owned by the Complainant, or is associated or connected with the Complainant, and that the Respondent is offering legitimate LAURA ASHLEY products (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as the sole purpose for its registration was and is to impersonate the Complainant for fraudulent purposes.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore failed to advance any substantive case on the merits.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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": "

A<\/strong>. <\/span>Complainant<\/strong>'<\/span>s Language Request<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel is given discretion under Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules to determine the appropriate language of the UDRP administrative proceeding. The Panel notes Rule 10 of the UDRP Rules, which vests the Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it deems appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.<\/p>\n

On this particular matter, the Panel takes the liberty to adopt the language of proceeding test applied in CAC Case no. 104144, Writera Limited v. alexander ershov, which helpfully sets out the following six guiding factors:<\/p>\n

(i) the language of the disputed domain name string<\/strong>: the Panel considers that English is the only identifiable language in the disputed domain name string, particularly the abbreviation 'eu' which appears to stand for 'European Union' in this context;<\/p>\n

(ii) the content of the Respondent<\/strong>'s website<\/strong>: the Respondent's website used to display content in English only;<\/p>\n

(iii) the language(s) of the Parties<\/strong>: the Complainant is a company based in the United States and the Respondent is a US resident (and potentially a US national). The English language would therefore be considered a common language<\/em> for both Parties;<\/p>\n

(iv) the Respondent<\/strong>'s behaviour<\/strong>: the Panel notes that the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\n

(v) the Panel<\/strong>'s overall concern with due process<\/strong>: the Panel has discharged its duty under Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules; and<\/p>\n

(vi) the balance of convenience<\/strong>: while determining the language of the UDRP administrative proceeding, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel’s determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding – a widely spoken language – is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience, not least given the above circumstances. The determination of Chinese as the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of this UDRP administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n

In view of the above factors, the Panel has decided to accept the Complainant's language request, such that the decision in the present matter will be rendered in English.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. <\/span>Miscellaneous<\/strong><\/p>\n

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": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-04-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

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

• UK trade mark registration no. UK00001231150, for the word mark LAURA ASHLEY, filed on 28 November 1984, in classes 2, 3, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• United States trade mark registration no. 1789975, for the word mark LAURA ASHLEY, filed on 22 March 1989, in classes 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, and 42;<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 000202408<\/span>, filed on 1 April 1996, for the word mark LAURA ASHLEY, in classes 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 42 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Collectively or individually referred to as 'the Complainant's trade mark', 'the Complainant's trade mark LAURA ASHLEY’, or 'the trade mark LAURA ASHLEY’).<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 22 January 2024. At the time of writing of this decision, it does not resolve to an active website (for present purposes, 'the Respondent’s website').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "lauraashleyeu.com ": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }