{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107064",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-11-19 09:26:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "vogue-escorts.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP (Stobbs IP)",
    "respondent": [
        "Enterprise UK Management Limited"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., is one of the world&rsquo;s most successful magazine publishers.<\/p>\n<p>Through its unincorporated division, The Cond&eacute; Nast Publications Inc., the Complainant publishes renowned magazines such as <em>Vogue<\/em>, <em>Glamour<\/em>, <em>The New Yorker<\/em>, <em>Vanity Fair<\/em>, and <em>GQ<\/em>. The Complainant's magazines have a significant internet presence and operate several popular websites that incorporate content from many of its magazines. <em>Vogue<\/em>, launched in 1892, is widely considered the world&rsquo;s leading fashion and style magazine for women. The publication is accessible both in physical print and digital formats in many territories around the globe, where it is recognized as the foremost voice in fashion and style.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations for the mark <em>VOGUE<\/em> worldwide, not only in connection with magazines and online publications but also a wide range of goods and services, ranging from clothing to entertainment services.<\/p>\n<p><em>Vogue Germany<\/em> is the Complainant&rsquo;s edition of <em>Vogue<\/em> magazine catering to the German public. It is the Complainant&rsquo;s third international edition, first published in 1928 and relaunched in 1979. <em>Vogue Germany<\/em> is also offered to internet users online at the domain name &lt;vogue.de&gt;, which has been used as a website promoting the Complainant&rsquo;s official offerings specific to the region since 2006.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on August 3, 2016, and resolves to a website offering escort services in various German cities.<\/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><strong>The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. Specifically, the Complainant contends the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademarks, including the well-known <em>VOGUE<\/em> The addition of the descriptor &ldquo;escourt,&rdquo; suffixed to the Complainant&rsquo;s mark with a hyphen (&ldquo;-&rdquo;), does not negate a finding of confusing similarity. The term &ldquo;vogue&rdquo; remains the dominant element of the disputed domain name, leading to consumer confusion and creating a mistaken belief that the domain is associated with the Complainant. Furthermore, the inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) &ldquo;.com&rdquo; is a standard registration requirement and should be disregarded in the analysis.<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark, and there is no relationship or license between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering escort services in various German cities. Between March 2017 and May 2019, these services were promoted under the name &ldquo;Vogue Escort&rdquo;. Additionally, the website featured a section titled &ldquo;Manager Magazine&rdquo;, which promoted its escort services through online posts and publications focusing on themes such as lifestyle news, luxury sports, fashion, and travel. The use of the disputed domain name, encompassing a famous name or mark, to promote a website offering adult content or services of a sexual nature cannot be considered bona fide.<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant&rsquo;s brand and registered the disputed domain name decades after the Complainant established its rights to the VOGUE trademark. This registration was made to exploit the Complainant's goodwill and reputation. By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s mark regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or the services promoted therein.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant requires the disputed domain name to be transferred.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant&rsquo;s contentions.<\/p>\n<p>&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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Ganna Prokhorova"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations, including the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>United States trademark VOGUE Reg. No: 103770 registered on April 13, 1915, in class 16;<\/li>\n<li>European Union trademark VOGUE Reg. No: 000183756 registered on May 28, 2014, in classes 9, 16, 25, 41.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names related to its VOGUE trademark, including, among others, &lt;vogue.com&gt;, &lt;vogue.co.uk&gt;, and &lt;vogue.de&gt;.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "vogue-escorts.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}