It results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it was founded in London in 2002 and now it is the internationally recognized brand for premium, handcrafted shoes and accessories in luxurious natural fibres. Complainant’s products are sold online and via selected boutiques and department stores worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further contends its trademark MOU be distinctive and well-known.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant use the domain names <mou.com> (registered on May 22, 1998), <mou-online.com> (registered on January 26, 2006), <mou-online.cn> and <mou-online.com.cn> to connect to its official website for advertising and commercializing its products.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <mouboots-nederland.com> and <moubootsnorge.com> were both registered on May 22, 2024.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant proves that the disputed domain names resolve to websites purportedly offering for sale products under the Complainant’s trademarks, displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark and logo.<\/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 Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "
The Complainant has, 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 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 names (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 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>\n
According to the information provided by the Registrars upon the Request for Registrar Verification sent by Online ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court, the disputed domain names are registered by different Registrants (Respondents): (i.e. Leahe Becken (GERMANY) is the Registrant of <mouboots-nederland.com>; ming dian (CHINA) is the Registrant of <moubootsnorge.com>.<\/p>\n
In its Amended Complaint the Complainant requests the Panel to consolidate the cases.<\/p>\n
Under Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules) “A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”.<\/p>\n
In the Panel’s view the Complainant submitted sufficient evidence to justify the consolidation in terms of common control of the domain names or corresponding websites and fairness and equitableness of the consolidation to all parties.<\/p>\n
As specified in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at point 4.11.2 “Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s),<\/strong> including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names<\/strong>, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns<\/strong> in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language\/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behaviour, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and\/or disclosures by the respondent(s).<\/p>\n The Panel considers the consolidation as appropriate, taking into consideration, in particular, the layout and content of the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names and the naming pattern. In particular, all the disputed domain names resolve to websites that have the same layout, i.e. webshops allegedly advertising Complainant’s MOU products, all displaying the Complainant’s trademark MOU in the middle of the headers, the black banner in the header relating to special conditions and the icons related to women, men and children (in the different corresponding language). In addition, there are similarities in the naming patterns in the disputed domain names, e.g. all disputed domain names contain the Complainant’s trademark MOU, the descriptive term BOOTS referring to the same Complainant’s business\/sector and a geographical term (i.e. Norge is the Norwegian name for Norway and Nederland is the Dutch name for The Netherlands). Furthermore, the Registrant Fax Number of the disputed domain name <moubootsnorge.com> is identical to the Registrant Phone Number and Registrant Fax Number of the disputed domain name <mouboots-nederland.com>. Both disputed domain names were registered in the same date, i.e. May 22, 2024 and share the same Registrar, i.e. Dynadot Inc.<\/p>\n Thus, the layout and content of the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names and the naming patterns in the disputed domain names give evidence of a common control of the domain names at issue.<\/p>\n On the balance of probabilities and taking into account the above circumstances of the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are under common control. The Panel is also satisfied that consolidation of these disputes is fair and equitable to all parties, and that they should be consolidated in the interest of procedural efficiency (s. Pandora A\/S v. Larry Sack, Alice Ferri, marino blasi, Sirkin Mösening, Meghan Pier, Monica Lugo, Tom Farge<\/em>n, CAC Case No. 103259).<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Respondent has not contested or provided any rebuttal regarding the consolidation request made by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that consolidation would be fair and equitable.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Dr. Federica Togo"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-17 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the registered owner of many trademarks for MOU, e.g. United States trademark registration no. 3663689 MOU (word) registered on August 4, 2009 for goods in class 25; European trademark registration no. 008164204 registered on December 11, 2009 for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"mouboots-nederland.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"moubootsnorge.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}