{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107599", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-27 10:31:15", "domain_names": [ "patekphilippesalons.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "PATEK PHILIPPE SA GENEVE" ], "complainant_representative": "Lucie PREVOST (Cabinet Vidon, Marques & Juridique PI)", "respondent": [ "jerome balsido (RPB OUEST)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

 <\/p>\n

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant is one of the most renowned companies in the history of Swiss watchmaking and has received numerous awards for its innovation and design.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The company was founded in 1839. The name \"PATEK PHILIPPE\" is composed of the surnames of its two founders: Antoine Norbert de Patek and Jean-Adrien Philippe. Since its inception, the company has been manufacturing luxury watches of the highest craftsmanship and precision under the brand name \" PATEK PHILIPPE.\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As one of the last independent family-owned watchmakers based in Geneva, Complainant offers high-quality watches and accessories around the world. The company operates over 300 retail stores and works with around a dozen distribution partners in America, Asia, and Europe.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant uses, inter alia, the domain names <patek.com> and <patekphilippe.com> as well as its trademarks “PATEK PHILIPPE” for its services and as its company name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <PATEKPHILIPPESALONS.COM > has been created by the Respondent on May 18, 2025. The disputed domain name currently does not link to an active website.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, the disputed domain name was reproduced in an email. The email was sent by a certain \"Julien Roche\" with the email address <julien.roche@patek.com> and informed a user that he had been placed on a waiting list for a PATEK PHILIPPE watch. The recipient of the email was asked to reply to the email address <JULIEN.ROCHE@PATEKPHILIPPESALONS.COM >. The email contains the Complainant's trademark \"PATEK PHILIPPE\" as well as other information, such as the Complainant's logo (cross) or a false sender email address with the Complainant's name, which could lead the recipient to believe that the content is legitimate. The content of the email is that the recipient is allegedly on a waiting list for a PATEK PHILLIPE watch, model Nautilus, priced at EUR 70,350, which is not the case, actually.<\/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 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>\n

The fact that the email above reproduces the contested domain name suggests a prima facie connection between the Respondent and the email. Furthermore, given the content of the email, the disputed domain name appears prima facie to be used for phishing or fraud by giving the impression that it is a legitimate domain name operated by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

<\/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": "2025-07-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting of the word element “PATEK PHILLIPE ”, such as:<\/p>\n