WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Hellen Admas
Case No. D2013-0303
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft of Triesen, Liechtenstein, represented by LegalBase (Pvt) Limited, Sri Lanka.
The Respondent is Hellen Admas of Qingzhou, Shandong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <swarovskijewelry-onsale.com> 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 February 14, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 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 February 20, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 12, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 13, 2013.
The Center appointed Desmond J. Ryan as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 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.
The Panel notes that the hard copy of the Complaint was undelivered, the courier record noting that the address and phone number given were wrong. The address and phone number were the address and phone number shown for the Respondent in the WhoIs for the disputed domain name. The Panel is satisfied that the requirements of paragraph 2(a) of the Rules have been satisfied.
4. Factual Background
The disputed domain name was registered on September 21, 2012.
The Complainant is renowned for its crystal ware, jewelry and other luxury items. It had its origins in Austria in the 19th Century; has production facilities in 18 countries, distribution in 42 countries and a presence in 120 countries. Its products are sold through 1,218 of its own boutiques and 1,000 partner-operated boutiques; in 2011 its worldwide revenue was approximately EUR 2.87 billion. It has registrations of its SWAROVSKI trademark and its Swan device trademark in the United States of America dating from 1972 and internationally from 2007 and has been widely publicized in internationally circulated publications such as “Digital Market Asia”, “Harpers Bazaar”, “Cosmopolitan” and “Vogue”. The Complainant's success and the reputation and attractive power of its SWAROVSKI trademark have made it a prime target for cybersquatters. It has been the subject of over 130 successful complaints under the Policy, 23 of which have been cited by the Complainant in this Complaint. This case is one of several complaints currently pending before the Center concerning the trademark SWAROVSKI.
At the date of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a website which offers for sale crystal and other jewelry items under the trademark SWAROVSKI. It displays the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark and its Swan device trademark with the words “Authorized Dealer”.
Nothing is known of the Respondent save that she is also the Respondent in Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Hellen Admas, WIPO Case No. D2013-0225 and, as discussed in the decision in that case, may have a connection with the respondents in Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. WhoisGuard / Kate Julie, WIPO Case No. D2013-0205 and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. WhoisGuard / Linda Blue, WIPO Case No. D2013-0004.
The website at the disputed domain name offers for sale items purporting to be SWAROVSKI but the look and feel and the “About Us” sections differ from those in the prior cases above cited.
The Complainant did not attempt to contact the Respondent with a view to settlement before filing the Complaint. The Complainant explains that it does not do so because it has experienced instances of cyber flight leading to delay in resolution of the matter.
The Respondent in this case is also the Respondent in co-pending Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Hellen Admas, WIPO Case No. D2013-0225. As noted in that case it would therefore have been appropriate to file a single complaint in respect of each of the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 3(c) of the Rules. The Complainant has chosen not to do so nor has it sought to consolidate the proceedings pursuant to paragraph 4(f) of the Policy. The Panel has therefore dealt with each case separately with cross reference to companion cases where appropriate.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant’s submissions, which are substantially the same as those in co-pending Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. WhoisGuard / Kate Julie, supra and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Hellen Admas, supra, may be summarized as follows:
- The Complainant has exclusive rights in the name and trademark SWAROVSKI by virtue of its extensive and longstanding worldwide reputation and its registration in the United States of America, the European Community and China and elsewhere.
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It wholly incorporates the trademark and the added words “jewelry” and “onsale” do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
- The Complainant has no connection or affiliation with the Respondent and has not received any licence or approval to use the disputed domain name.
- The Respondent has never been known by the name Swarovski.
- The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create initial interest confusion and to create the impression of an association with the Complainant.
- The Respondent has deliberately misappropriated the Complainant’s mark knowing of its fame and reputation.
- It is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark and the only logical explanation for the adoption of the disputed domain name was to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s mark and to obtain economic advantage from the inevitable confusion to which it would lead.
- The purported Swarovski products offered at the Respondent’s website are not guaranteed by the Complainant and constitute a blatant infringement of the SWAROVSKI trademark.
- The Respondent, at her website, claims it to be an “An Authorized Dealer”, but does not identify her as independent from the Complainant.
- The contact details provided by the Respondent are fake.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The reasons for the Panel's decision in this case are substantially the same as those given by this Panel in co-pending case Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. WhoisGuard / Kate Julie, supra. They are, with appropriate amendments, set out below for completeness.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trademark is, and has been for many years, a well-known trademark in the field of cut crystal, jewelry and other luxury items. It is registered in the United States of America, Europe, China and several other jurisdictions. Over 130 prior panel decisions under the Policy have recognized that it is a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
It has been recognized in many prior UDRP panel decisions that where the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark it is not distinguished from the trademark by the addition of generic descriptive words such as “jewelry” and “onsale”. As found by the panel in Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Luo Li, WIPO Case No. D2012-1604, such words:
“do not eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between the Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain names”.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has no connection or affiliation with the Respondent and has not given any licence or authority to the Respondent to use the trademark SWAROVSKI in the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has shown examples of the website at the disputed domain name at which, it is clearly suggesting that the goods offered for sale are the genuine goods of the Complainant and stating that the site is that of an “Authorized dealer” in the Complainant’s products. The Complainant denies that this is so and the Respondent has made no attempt to dispute the Complainant’s assertions in this regard. Even if the items offered at the Complainant’s website were made by or for the Respondent using genuine Swarovski parts that does not entitle the Respondent to sell the items as Swarovski. A car is not a Rolls Royce merely because it is powered by a Rolls Royce engine. The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark is therefore an illegitimate use and such use cannot constitute a use in the bona fide offering of the Respondent’s goods.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
At the time of registration of the disputed domain name the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI was world famous. As the Complainant submits, it is inconceivable that the Respondent, a person engaged in the same industry as the Complainant, would not have known of the Complainant’s mark. The only logical reason for its adoption therefore must have been with bad faith intent to use it to exploit, for commercial gain, the Complainant’s reputation. As demonstrated above, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for precisely that purpose. The Respondent’s use is therefore, by definition, use in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Bad faith is further evidenced by the Respondent’s provision of a false address and phone number in the WhoIs for the disputed domain name and by the fact that she has provided the same false address and phone number in both this case and in co-pending case Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Hellen Admas, supra.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 <swarovskijewelry-onsale.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Desmond J. Ryan AM
Date: March 27, 2013