The Complainant states that it is one of the most recognized companies in the history of Swiss watchmaking industry.
The Complainant points out that it maintains over 300 retail locations globally and a dozen distributors across the world.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it has registered the domain names <patek.com> and <patekphilippe.com>, leading to its official website, since March 7, 1996.
The Complainant underlines that its trademark is depicted at the top of its main webpage, in association with the French name of its city of origin, namely GENEVE.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it exactly reproduces the trademark “PATEK PHILIPPE”, with the mere addition of the French name of its city of origin “GENEVE”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the addition of the top-level domain \".COM\" should be disregarded in the confusing similarity test.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the addition of the word “GENEVE” is not sufficient to prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it owns trademark rights on the sign “PATEK PHILIPPE” at least since 1949 and on the sign “PATEK” at least since 1958.
The Complainant states that it has given no authorization to the Respondent, in any form, to use the sign “PATEK PHILIPPE”, nor to register a domain name including its trademarks.
The Complainant notes that the Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the disputed domain name, because the disputed domain name does not lead to any active website, but to a parking page.<\/p>\n
For the above reasons, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/span> The Complainant notes that the notoriety of its trademarks has been acknowledged in several UDRP decisions.<\/p>\n The Complainant considers that the Respondent did know that the Complainant owns rights on the “PATEK PHILIPPE” trademark, as it cannot be a coincidence that the terms included in the disputed domain name correspond to the main Complainant's trademark and to its city of origin.<\/p>\n The Complainant believes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s customers. The Complainant adds that there is the risk that the Respondent sets up and configures email addresses, and this use would increase the implausibility of the Respondent’s good faith. <\/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, relying on the arguments summarised above, 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, 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, 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": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Michele Antonini"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-02-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"PATEK PHILIPPE\", including the international trademark No 394802, registered on December 21, 1972, for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16 and 34.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 14, 2024.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"patekphilippe-geneve.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
The Complainant underlines that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, about the Complainant’s trademark rights, due to its worldwide scope of activities and renown.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that the mere fact that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's distinctive trademark, is an indication of bad faith.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent merely registered the disputed domain name with the aim of preventing the Complainant to obtain the same domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant notes that the Respondent has previously been the Respondent in several successful UDRP procedures.
The Complainant considers that the described circumstances demonstrate that the Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n