The First Complainant is a famous company for Swiss watchmaking. It was founded in 1839. The name “PATEK PHILIPPE” came from the combination of the names of the two founders: Antoine Norbert de Patek and Jean-Adrien Philippe.<\/p>\n
It is at the very top of the luxury watch industry under “PATEK PHILIPPE” trademark. It is one of the last independent, family-owned watch manufacturers in Geneva, and offers connoisseurs high-end watches and accessories. The company maintains over 300 retail locations globally and a dozen distributors across America, Asia, Europe, Pacific and more.<\/p>\n
They say there are only 4 authorized retailers of their watches in New York (Bucherer TimeMachine, Tiffany & Co., Watches of Switzerland, Hudson Yards, and Wempe Jewelers).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <patekphilippenewyork.com> resolves to a US company trading as “WRIST AFICIONADO” and it claims to be an authorized re-seller of PATEK PHILIPPE’s watches as well as other leading brands.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
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": "
The Complainant has not, 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": "
The Complainant has not, 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": "
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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Victoria McEvedy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The First Complainant, Patek Philippe SA Geneve has a very large international portfolio of registered trademarks including: <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Second Complainant, Henri Stern Watch Agency, Inc is a US subsidiary of the first complainant and the registered owner of the following registered trademarks in the USA: the word mark “PATEK PHILIPPE” No. 520291in class 14, filed on 29 January 1949, No. 764655 in class 14, filed on 22 April 1963 and No. 6983438 in class 14, filed on 28 September 2021.<\/p>\n The Complainants say the name and mark “PATEK PHILIPPE”, is a famous mark. <\/p>\n The First Complainant has registered the domain names <patek.com> and <patekphilippe.com>, leading to the official website, on 7 March 1996. The internet archive shows that the trademarks and those websites have been continuously used at least since 1998.<\/p>\n The First Complainant also owns rights in the name PATEK PHILIPPE SA GENEVE as a company name, the company being registered since 1901.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"patekphilippenewyork.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n