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

Christian Dior Couture v. Tom E Byrd

Case No. D2013-0050

The Parties

The Complainant is Christian Dior Couture of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Marc Sabatier, France.

The Respondent is Tom E Byrd of Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <diorstore.net> is registered with Register.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 10, 2013. On January 10, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name(s). On January 22, 2013, 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.

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 January 24, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 13, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 14, 2013.

The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on February 27, 2013. 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 manufactures and retails luxury goods such as handbags, sunglasses, spectacles, leather goods, shoes and other items of clothing and accessories.

It is the legal owner of a number of trademarks around the world for DIOR, including United States trademark registration, no. 1923564, dated October 3, 1995.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 25, 2012.

The Complainant markets its products through <dior.com> which was registered on October 6, 1995.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

This section sets out the Complainant’s contentions without expressing the Panel’s view of them.

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark DIOR and the common word “store” which is associated with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant is very well known for the goods it sells under the DIOR trademarks all over the world.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. No license, contract or other authorization has ever been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent authorizing it to register and use the dispute domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant sent a warning letter requesting the voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name on October 25, 2012 to which it has received no reply. It is impossible for the Respondent to be unaware of the Complainant’s trademarks since the Complainant has used these since 1947 and has several stores in the United States. The Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name to take advantage of the notoriety of DIOR and to attract the public’s attention as a result of the image of luxury that the Complainant’s trademark carries.

The Respondent is selling on the disputed domain name’s website the Complainant’s goods at a significant discount without the permission of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark and the generic word “store” which is one of the ways in which the Complainant sells and promotes its goods and the necessary standard generic top-level domain (gTLD) suffix “.com”. The addition of generic words (such as “store”) and the gTLD suffix “.com” to a trademark does not prevent the resulting domain name from being confusingly similar to the trademark concerned. This is particularly the case here where the trademark is not a word in general use and the generic word added to it is naturally associated with a way in which the Complainant uses the trademark concerned. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not called “Dior” or anything similar and does not appear to trade under that or any related name. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. The Panel notes the website at the dispute domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and provides no information or disclaimer clarifying the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trademark is extremely well known worldwide. It is impossible, at least without a Response to the Complaint, to identify a reason why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name other than to attract to its site business or Internet users who were looking for a site connected to the Complainant’s trademark or business.

The only explanation of what has happened seems to be that the Respondent’s motive in registering the disputed domain name was to either to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers or potential customers, attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain to the website connected to the disputed domain name or persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These all constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

The Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves indicates clearly that the Respondent is well aware of the Complainant’s trademark. Through the website, the Respondent seeks to market the Complainant’s products. This is sufficient on its own to justify a conclusion that the dispute domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knows that the Complainant has trademark rights.

For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name <diorstore.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: March 12, 2013

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/