About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 A/S v. Li Xingfeng

Case No. D2011-0987

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 A/S of Brande, Denmark, represented by Bech-Bruun Law Firm, Denmark.

The Respondent is Li Xingfeng of Alcatec, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jackjones86.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2011. On June 10, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 10, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc.. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 June 21, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 11, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2011.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 2011. 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

Complainant is a widely-known global manufacturer and retailer of clothing and accessories under the trademark JACK JONES. The Complainant operates more than 2,500 stores in 46 countries around the world. Dating back to as early as 1990, the Complainant has registered the trademark mark JACK JONES in numerous jurisdictions worldwide including Denmark, the European Union, the United States of America, and Australia. The Complainant conducts promotional activities and retail sales through the website <jackjones.com>.

The disputed domain name was created on November 26, 2009. According to the concerned Registrar, GoDaddy.com, Inc., the disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent on January 4, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is part of an illegal scheme to market and sell counterfeit Jack Jones apparel. The Complainant asserts the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Jack Jones mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent's website to sell counterfeit Jack Jones clothing.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy articulates three elements that must be established by a complainant to merit a finding that a respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and to obtain relief. These elements are that:

i) The respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights, and

ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and

iii) The respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark with the exception of the addition of the number "86" as a suffix. The mere addition of a random number as a suffix to the Complainant’s trademark is insufficient to avoid confusingly similarity between the domain name and the trademark. ECCO Sko AIS v. Protected Domain Services Customer ID: NCR-2448048 /jizhiteam, WIPO Case No. D2010-1113 (transferring <51ecco.com>). The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JACK JONES mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has specifically asserted that the Respondent was never granted any authority to register or to use the disputed domain name or the JACK JONES mark. It is apparent that the disputed domain name is being utilized for commercial gain. There are no indicia that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or has ever been known by the disputed domain name. Under these circumstances, one would have expected the Respondent to come forth with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no such showing. Christian Dior v. Carl Lim, WIPO Case No. D2008-1038. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant is a globally well-known manufacturer and retailer of clothing apparel. The Complainant's JACK JONES family of marks were registered in numerous jurisdictions, including Australia, long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. More tellingly, the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the JACK JONES mark and resolves to a website selling apparently falsely labeled Jack Jones apparel. The use of a domain name for the promotion and sale of potentially counterfeit goods is compelling evidence of bad faith. Hermes International v. Jody Chris, Hairlord, WIPO Case No. D2011-0047. On the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <jackjones86.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/