Founded in 1839, the name “PATEK PHILIPPE” has its origin in the names of two of the founders: Antoine Norbert de Patek and Jean-Adrien Philippe. As one of the last independent, family-owned watch manufacturers in Geneva, the Complainant Patek Philippe SA Geneve offers connoisseurs high-end watches and accessories around the world. The Complainant Henri Stern Watch Agency, Inc. is a subsidiary of Patek Philippe SA Geneve in the United States of America, with outlets in Boston and New York.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names were all registered on February 4, 2018.<\/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 Complainants contend that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to the Complainant Patek Philippe SA Geneve, for the following reasons.<\/p>\n
The trademark PATEK PHILIPPE, used to designate the Complainants’ goods, is famous worldwide.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <patekphilippeboutique.com>, <patekphilippeboutiqueboston.com>, <patekphilippenyc.com>, <patekphilippenewyorkcity.com>, <pateknewyork.com>, <patekboston.com> and <patekphilippeboston.com> are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ PATEK and PATEK PHILIPPE marks.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainants own trademark rights in PATEK PHILIPPE since at least 1949 and as a company name since 1901.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainants, who have given no authorization to the Respondent in any form, to use the sign PATEK PHILIPPE, nor to register domain names including their trademarks. The successful registration of the disputed domain names by the Respondent does not confer any additional rights or legitimate interests in using the Complainants’ trademark as its own domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the disputed domain names. All seven disputed domain names resolve to the website “https:\/\/shrevecrumpandlow.com”, which is operated by the American jeweller Shreve Crump & Low. The website offers for sale, amongst others, pre-owned watches branded PATEK PHILIPPE, claiming to be certified. However, it is impossible for the Respondent to confirm the assertions on the certified goods as they are not authorized by the rightful owner, Patek Philippe SA Geneve.<\/p>\n
The Respondent fails to comply with the requirements outlined in the “Oki Data test<\/em>” insofar as the Respondent is not an authorized retailer of the Complainants; does not accurately or prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainants, in particular that it is not an authorized seller of the Complainants nor has any particular connection with the Complainants, and does not use the website to sell only the Complainants’ trademarked goods and services. Rather, it advertises products from the Complainants’ competitors such as Audemars Piguet and Rolex and contains prominent links to the competitors’ products gallery where the Respondent offers other goods in competition with the Complainants. Finally, the Respondent tries to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark, preventing the Complainants from reserving domain names associating the trademark PATEK PHILIPPE with a location of their activities, i.e. Boston or New York.<\/p>\n The registrar's verification has demonstrated that the named Respondent is Mr David G WALKER, with the email address <shreve@shrevecrumpandlow.com>. The Respondent's name refers to the former owner and president of Shreve Crump & Low, who passed away on October 25, 2021. This information confirms that the named Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainants’ trademarks were known, or at least should have been known, by any actor in the field of fine watchmaking, due to the fact that the PATEK PHILIPPE trademarks are widely filed, registered and famous. It is the Complainants’ opinion that the Respondent did not file a PATEK PHILIPPE trademark application in the USA because, undoubtedly, he had perfect knowledge of the Complainants’ activities. By adopting domain names featuring the Complainants’ PATEK PHILIPPE trademark, the Respondent is creating confusion with the Complainants’ trademark to attract Internet users to its website and is then offering for sale to those visitors not only the Complainants’ goods but also those of the Complainants’ competitors.<\/p>\n It has also to be noted that the information as to the registrant of the disputed domain names is false insofar as David Walker passed away in 2021. The disputed domain names are probably reserved in the name of the company Shreve Crump & Low in view of the contact's email address and the information has not been updated since 2021. The lack of update of the information related to the registrant confirms the bad faith of the Respondent in the use of the domain names.<\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainants have, 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 Complainants have rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainants have, 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 Complainants have, 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": [
"Alan Limbury"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-16 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant Patek Philippe SA Geneve owns inter alia <\/em>the following word mark registrations: International Reg. No. 208381 PATEK, registered on March 22, 1958 in classes 09 and 14; and International Reg. No. 394802 PATEK PHILIPPE, registered on December 21, 1972 in classes 09, 14, 16 and 34.<\/p>\n The Complainant Henri Stern Watch Agency, Inc., owns inter alia the following word mark registrations with the United States Intellectual Property Office: Reg. No. 520291 PATEK PHILIPPE, registered on January 24, 1950 in International Class 14 and Reg. No. 764655, PATEK PHILIPPE registered on February 11, 1964 in International Class 14.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"patekphilippeboutique.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"patekphilippeboutiqueboston.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"patekphilippenyc.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"patekphilippenewyorkcity.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"pateknewyork.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"patekboston.com ": "TRANSFERRED",
"patekphilippeboston.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}