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

Shoshanna Lonstein v. Florence Bartels

Case No. D2017-1643

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Shoshanna Lonstein of New York, United States of America, represented by Pryor Cashman, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Florence Bartels, of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <shoshannaswimwear.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 23, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 25, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 28, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 17, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 27, 2017.

The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 2017. 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 designs and markets women's clothing under the trademark SHOSHANNA. Complainant owns trademark registrations for her mark, including U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,939,088, filed December 28, 2005, registered March 29, 2011, for SHOSHANNA in connection with various clothing products including "swimwear."

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 8, 2017. The domain name is used for a website that purports to sell SHOSHANNA swimwear. The street address in the domain name registration does not exist.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that she has prior rights in the mark SHOSHANNA and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not authorized to sell Complainant's products, and may be selling counterfeit products. Finally, Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant owns prior trademark rights in SHOSHANNA, including a U.S. Trademark Registration of SHOSHANNA for various clothing products, including swimwear. The Disputed Domain Name includes Complainant's mark in full, combined with an apt product description for one of the items covered by Complainant's trademark registration. The addition of an apt descriptive term to another trademark is insufficient to avoid confusion, and may instead increase the likelihood of confusion. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark owned by Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has demonstrated through a sworn declaration that Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the Dispute Domain Name or sell SHOSHANNA clothing. Complainant suggests that the clothing sold on the website may be counterfeit. The website itself contains no business address or other information to suggest that it is a legitimate business. Respondent has not rebutted these facts. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant has established prior rights in the SHOSHANNA mark for swimwear. Respondent was on notice of those rights as a matter of law due to Complainant's U.S. Trademark Registration. The Disputed Domain Name is used for a site that appears to be selling SHOSHANNA swimwear from Complainant, yet Complainant has established that Respondent's use is not authorized. The facts establish a deliberate effort by Respondent to cause confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds no plausible good faith reason for Respondent's conduct and concludes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used 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, <shoshannaswimwear.com> should be transferred to the Complainant.

Mark Partridge
Sole Panelist
Date: October 22, 2017

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/