{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107515", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-05 10:16:39", "domain_names": [ "highsnobiety.one" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Titel Media GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "Dr Julian Efurth (Lubberger Lehment Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)", "respondent": [ "Joseph Lee" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is the owner of the global fashion and lifestyle media brand HIGHSNOBIETY and operates as a media outlet reviewing fashion and lifestyle products, as a clothing brand selling its own clothing lines and collaborating with luxury brands, and as a creative agency advising companies on marketing their fashion and lifestyle products. Since its founding in 2005, HIGHSNOBIETY has grown into an established media and lifestyle brand, well-known not only in Germany and across Europe, but also internationally, including in the United States and Japan.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on March 1, 2025, and directs to a parking page displaying advertisement for companies that compete with the Complainant in the area of fashion and shoes and containing links to the competitor’s online shops.<\/p>\n

 <\/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 states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark HIGHSNOBIETY.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the addition of the TLD “.one” is not sufficient to escape this finding,<\/span> as it serves solely a technical function.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant also states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known to the Complainant, was neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark and is not making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a parking page displaying advertisement for the Complainant’s competitors, thereby generating income by exploiting the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. Because HIGHSNOBIETY is an invented word, nobody would legitimately choose this wording unless seeking to create an impression of an association with the Complainant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark HIGHSNOBIETY. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to generate advertising revenue by misleading internet users and promoting competing products, thereby exploiting the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and depriving the Complainant of potential customers. Bad faith is further indicated by the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response or provide any evidence of actual or intended good-faith use, the concealment of the Respondent’s identity by using a privacy service and neither providing an imprint on the website nor revealing its name in the Whois-Register, and the overall implausibility of any good-faith use. The Complainant reinforces that “HIGHSNOBIETY” is a neologism derived from the term “high society”, has no inherent meaning, is not generic, and is, from the perspective of the relevant public, exclusively associated with the Complainant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name 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 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": [ "Dominik Eickemeier" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademarks HIGHSNOBIETY. This includes international trademarks, such as the international trademark HIGHSNOBIETY no. 1306247, based on the German trademark HIGHSNOBIETY no. 302016000502, registered on January 13, 2016, as well as the international trademark HIGHSNOBIETY no. 1464218, based on the German trademark no. 3020180195179, registered on August 10, 2018. This also includes several national trademarks, such as the US trademark HIGHSNOBIETY no. 5238644, registered on July 11, 2017, and the Japanese trademark HIGHSNOBIETY no. 2017-358164, registered on July 6, 2018.<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns at least one domain name containing the wording HIGHSNOBIETY, namely <highsnobiety.com>, registered in 2005.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "highsnobiety.one": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }