{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108390", "time_of_filling": "2026-02-17 10:02:40", "domain_names": [ "jaegerbrand.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Marks & Spencer PLC", "Marks & Spencer (Jaeger) Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ "yining fan" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is Marks and Spencer plc, a well-known multinational retailer headquartered in London, United Kingdom, together with its subsidiary Marks and Spencer (Jaeger) Limited. The Complainant operates a substantial international retail business specialising in clothing, beauty, home, and food products.<\/p>\n

Marks and Spencer plc was founded in 1884 and, as of 2026, operates over 1,000 stores in the United Kingdom, as well as hundreds of additional locations internationally. The Complainant also maintains a significant online presence, offering its products to customers in over 100 countries through a network of dedicated websites.<\/p>\n

The JAEGER brand was originally established in 1884 and has a long-standing reputation for high-quality clothing and distinctive British style. In January 2021, the Complainant acquired the JAEGER brand and subsequently relaunched it as part of its “Brands at M&S” strategy. Since that time, the Complainant has actively promoted and commercialised the JAEGER brand both online and through its retail operations.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trade mark registrations for the sign JAEGER in multiple jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States. These registrations cover a range of goods and services, including clothing in Class 25, and predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by many years.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant owns and operates a substantial portfolio of domain names incorporating the JAEGER mark, as well as maintaining a strong presence across social media platforms, where it promotes its products and brands to a wide audience of consumers.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name, <jaegerbrand.com>, was registered in August 2025.<\/p>\n

At the time of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website that prominently featured the Complainant’s JAEGER trade mark and branding, and which purported to offer JAEGER-branded products for sale. The Complainant submits, that this website is not authorised by the Complainant and imitates the Complainant’s official online presence.<\/p>\n

The <\/span>Complainant <\/span>submits furthermore <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>requirements <\/span>of <\/span>paragraph <\/span>4(<\/span>a) <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>Policy <\/span>are <\/span>satisfied.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, <\/span>the <\/span>Disputed <\/span>Domain <\/span>Name <\/span>is <\/span>confusingly <\/span>similar <\/span>to <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant’s <\/span>JAEGER<\/span> <\/span>trade <\/span>mark. <\/span>It <\/span>incorporates <\/span>the <\/span>mark <\/span>in <\/span>its <\/span>entirety <\/span>together <\/span>with <\/span>the <\/span>descriptive <\/span>term “<\/span>brand”, <\/span>which <\/span>does <\/span>not <\/span>prevent <\/span>a <\/span>finding <\/span>of <\/span>confusing <\/span>similarity. <\/span>On <\/span>the <\/span>contrary, <\/span>the <\/span>addition <\/span>of “<\/span>brand” <\/span>reinforces <\/span>the <\/span>association <\/span>with <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant <\/span>and <\/span>increases <\/span>the <\/span>likelihood <\/span>of <\/span>confusion. <\/span>The “.<\/span>com” <\/span>gTLD <\/span>is <\/span>to <\/span>be <\/span>disregarded <\/span>for <\/span>the <\/span>purpose <\/span>of <\/span>this <\/span>assessment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent <\/span>has <\/span>no <\/span>rights <\/span>or <\/span>legitimate <\/span>interests <\/span>in <\/span>the <\/span>Disputed <\/span>Domain <\/span>Name. <\/span>The <\/span>Complainant <\/span>has <\/span>not <\/span>authorised <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent <\/span>to <\/span>use <\/span>its <\/span>JAEGER <\/span>mark, <\/span>and <\/span>there <\/span>is <\/span>no <\/span>evidence <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent <\/span>is <\/span>commonly <\/span>known <\/span>by <\/span>the <\/span>name “<\/span>Jaeger”. <\/span>The <\/span>Disputed <\/span>Domain <\/span>Name <\/span>resolves <\/span>to <\/span>a <\/span>website <\/span>that <\/span>impersonates <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant, <\/span>prominently <\/span>displays <\/span>the <\/span>JAEGER <\/span>mark, <\/span>and <\/span>offers <\/span>JAEGER-<\/span>branded <\/span>products <\/span>without <\/span>authorisation. <\/span>Such <\/span>use <\/span>does in the view of Complainant <\/span>not <\/span>constitute <\/span>a <\/span>bona <\/span>fide <\/span>offering <\/span>of <\/span>goods <\/span>or <\/span>services, <\/span>nor <\/span>a <\/span>legitimate <\/span>non-<\/span>commercial <\/span>or <\/span>fair <\/span>use. <\/span>The <\/span>Respondent’s <\/span>conduct <\/span>fails <\/span>to <\/span>meet <\/span>the <\/span>criteria <\/span>established <\/span>in <\/span>Oki <\/span>Data <\/span>Americas, <\/span>Inc. <\/span>v. <\/span>ASD, <\/span>Inc.<\/span><\/em>, <\/span>as <\/span>the <\/span>website <\/span>does <\/span>not <\/span>accurately <\/span>disclose <\/span>any <\/span>lack <\/span>of <\/span>relationship <\/span>and <\/span>instead <\/span>falsely <\/span>suggests <\/span>affiliation <\/span>with <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, <\/span>the <\/span>Disputed <\/span>Domain <\/span>Name <\/span>was in the view of the Complainant <\/span>registered <\/span>and <\/span>is <\/span>being <\/span>used <\/span>in <\/span>bad <\/span>faith. <\/span>Given <\/span>the <\/span>longstanding <\/span>reputation <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>JAEGER <\/span>mark, <\/span>it <\/span>is <\/span>inconceivable <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent <\/span>was <\/span>unaware <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant’s <\/span>rights <\/span>at <\/span>the <\/span>time <\/span>of <\/span>registration. <\/span>The <\/span>Respondent <\/span>has <\/span>clearly <\/span>targeted <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant <\/span>by <\/span>incorporating <\/span>its <\/span>mark <\/span>into <\/span>the <\/span>Disputed <\/span>Domain <\/span>Name <\/span>and <\/span>using <\/span>it <\/span>for <\/span>an <\/span>imitation <\/span>website. <\/span>By <\/span>doing <\/span>so, <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent <\/span>has <\/span>intentionally <\/span>attempted <\/span>to <\/span>attract <\/span>Internet <\/span>users <\/span>for <\/span>commercial <\/span>gain <\/span>by <\/span>creating <\/span>a <\/span>likelihood <\/span>of <\/span>confusion <\/span>as <\/span>to <\/span>source, <\/span>sponsorship, <\/span>affiliation, <\/span>or <\/span>endorsement, <\/span>within <\/span>the <\/span>meaning <\/span>of <\/span>paragraph <\/span>4(<\/span>b)(<\/span>iv) <\/span>of <\/span>the <\/span>Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Accordingly, <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant <\/span>requests <\/span>that <\/span>the <\/span>Disputed <\/span>Domain <\/span>Name <\/span>be <\/span>transferred <\/span>to <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant.<\/span><\/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>", "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": [ "Jan Schnedler" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-03-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The <\/span>Complainant <\/span>owns <\/span>multiple <\/span>registered <\/span>trade <\/span>marks <\/span>for <\/span>JAEGER<\/span>, <\/span>including:<\/span><\/p>\n