The Complainant is Krizia S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Giambrocono & C. S.p.A., Italy.
The Respondent is Hong Hee Dong of Daegu, Republic of Korea.
The disputed domain name <krizia.com> is registered with Cydentity, Inc. dba Cypack.com.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Cydentity, Inc. dba Cypack.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 4, 2009, Cydentity, Inc. dba Cypack.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
On February 10, 2009, the Center notified the parties of the Center's procedural rules relevant to the language of the proceeding. On February 12, 2009, the Complainant has submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding, to which the Respondent has not replied within the specified deadline. On February 18, 2009, the Center notified the parties of its preliminary decision to 1) accept the Complaint as filed in English; 2) accept a Response in either Korean or English; and 3) appoint a panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available.
The Center verified that the 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 February 18, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 10, 2009. On February 19, 2009, the Respondent sent three email communications to the Center, inter alia, objecting to the Complainant's request that the language of proceeding be English, but did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 11, 2009.
The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 2009. 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.
The Complainant, established in the early 1950s, is a well-known Italian company that designs, manufactures and sells fashion and luxury goods, such as handbags and clothing. The Complainant has retail locations throughout the world, and also holds trademark registrations for KRIZIA (in text and/or stylized form) in countries such as the United States, Italy, Australia, Belgium, Hong Kong, SAR of China, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Province of China, Argentina, Chile, Peru, as well as in the Republic of Korea.
The Respondent appears to be an individual and obtained the disputed domain name on April 11, 2002.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to marks in which the Complainant has rights. More specifically, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to KRIZIA, for which the Complainant has trademark registrations in various countries, including in the Republic of Korea.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. More specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in a bona fide manner.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The points presented by the Complainant include: (1) the Respondent's history of cybersquatting, and (2) the present use of the disputed domain name in connection with a domain name parking service.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise. In this case, the default language of the proceeding is Korean, and the Complainant submitted arguments as to why English is more appropriate. While the Respondent sent a simple email objecting to English and stating that he would provide submissions in Korean, in the end, the Respondent made no such submissions.
The Respondent failed to file a Response or otherwise participate in the proceeding in any capacity. Further, the disputed domain name displays content entirely in English. The content is generated by a domain name parking service (smartnames.com) that operates entirely in English. Given these circumstances including the fact that all of the procedural communications have been issued both in Korean and in English, the Panel finds little reason to render its decision in Korean to the prejudice and inconvenience of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds it fairer and more appropriate to render the decision in English.
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds various trademark registrations for KRIZIA. The disputed domain name entirely corresponds to the Complainant's asserted trademark, and is therefore identical.
For the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the first element has been satisfied.
The Complainant has made the required allegations that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides various examples of how a respondent may demonstrate his/her rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no Response. Accordingly, there is no evidence or allegation in the record that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.
For these reasons and also in view of the Panel's findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has established the second element.
The existence of the Respondent's bad faith is rather clear in this matter. First, the Respondent holds literally hundreds of domain names and has been a losing party in many prior domain name disputes. Notwithstanding a registration date of April 11, 2002, the disputed domain name has not been used in any substantive and bona fide manner, and merely links to a domain name parking service. Finally, the disputed domain name is identical to a highly distinctive trademark (KRIZIA), and this coincidence can only be explained by intentional and bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Given the circumstances described above, there is little doubt that this third and final element has been established.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <krizia.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Dated: April 30, 2009