PUMA SE v. no.365 erlou, she lao
Case No. D2014-1229
1. The Parties
The Complainant is PUMA SE of Herzogenaurach, Germany, represented by Göhmann Rechtsanwalte Abogados Advokat Steuerberater Partnerschaft, Germany.
The Respondent is no.365 erlou, she lao of Xiamen, Guangzhou, China.
The disputed domain name
is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2014. On July 18, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 23, 2014.
The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 24, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 13, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 15, 2014.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a multinational footwear and clothing company. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the trademark PUMA for, inter alia, footwear and clothing around the world, including in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 16, 2011.
The disputed domain name is being used to sell Puma branded footwear which may not have originated from the Complainant. The products are advertised on the website under the disputed domain name, principally in Chinese.
On the page to which the disputed domain name resolves, the trademark PUMA appears in large letters on the top left hand side of the webpage. There is a notice at the bottom of the page which states in Chinese: “Puma Official website” and then in English “© 2005～2015 All rights reserved”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant’s contentions are set out below.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name
consists of the trademark PUMA and the words “in-china”.
The disputed domain name is, therefore, made up of the Complainant’s trademark and a descriptive term. It is thereby confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is not commonly known by the name Puma. It has received no consent or license from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith with the intention of attracting Internet users to the website.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel finds that this is a clear case of cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel agrees fully with the Complainant’s arguments and considering the record does not consider it necessary to write a long decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name
is made up of the Complainant’s registered trademark PUMA, the words “in china” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”. It is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
Paragraph 1.2 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the “WIPO Overview 2.0”), sets out the test for determining confusing similarity. Paragraph 1.2 provides (in part):
“The threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms […] typically being regarded as insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion […]”.
The first element of the Policy is made out.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Clearly, none of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is made out.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the similar reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
As previously noted, the Respondent claims on the website under the disputed domain name to be the Complainant by use of the Complainant’s trademark and copyright notices.
Moreover, the sale of possibly counterfeit Puma products on the website clearly falls under this sub-paragraph.
The Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is made out.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name
be transferred to the Complainant.
Date: August 22, 2014