WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Guccio Gucci S.p.A v. Andrea Hubner, Beijing Harmony Software Co.Ltd., jiang wang, brian miller, Pornsawang Chotima, Domain Whois Protection Service, Whois Agent, Jie Zhou, Jayzhou, Hi to every day in Zhengzhou Medical Devices Co., Ltd., tian jin hua jin you xian gong si, lihong jay, hu, lizhu hu, da tou, Tamia Liu, Wang Jie, Yijiwangluo.

Case No. D2012-2212

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Guccio Gucci S.p.A of Florence, Italy, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.

The Respondents are Andrea Hubner of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China; Beijing Harmony Software Co.Ltd., jiang wang of Beijing, China; brian miller, Pornsawang Chotima of Hefei, Anhui, China; Domain Whois Protection Service, Whois Agent of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China; Jie Zhou, Jayzhou, Hi to every day in Zhengzhou Medical Devices Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China; tian jin hua jin you xian gong si, lihong jay, hu of Beijing, China; lizhu hu, da tou of Fujian, China; Tamia Liu of Beijing, China; Wang Jie of Putian, Fujian, China; Yijiwangluo of Fujian, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name <online-gucci-store.com> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc.

The disputed domain name <guccis.net> is registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd.

The disputed domain name <discountguccibagsus.com> is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp.

The following five (5) disputed domain names are registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.:

<guccioutletofficial.net>; <guccisbagsonsale.com>; <guccishoesofficial.net>; <guccishoesoutletstore.net>; <guccisshoesoutlet.com>.

The following twenty-nine (29) disputed domain names are registered with Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD:

<borse-gucciborse.com>; <borse-gucciborse.net>; <borsegucciborses.com>; <gucciashoesonline.com>; <gucciashoesonline.net>; <guccibagsauthentic.com>; <gucci-bags.net>; <guccibagsonsaleu.com>; <guccibagsreplica.com>; <gucci-bet.com>; <gucci-borse.com>; <gucci-ebags.com>; <guccifactoryoutletonlinevip.com>; <guccihandbagsonsell.com>; <guccioutletonlinea.org>; <gucci-outlet-online.com>; <guccioutletonlinene.com>; <guccioutletonlinevip1.com>; <guccioutletstoreline.com>; <guccioutlet2u.com>; <guccishoesmart.com>; <guccishoes-outlet.com>; <guccishoesoutlet.net>; <guccishoesusstore.com>; <guccisshoesonline.com>; <guccisshoesonline.net>; <guccitoutletonline.net>; <gucci-wholesale.com>; <sunglasses-gucci.com>.

The following ninety-one (91) disputed domain names are registered with Hangzhou E-Business Services Co., Ltd.:

<fashionguccishoes.com>; <guccibagsales.net>; <guccibagsguccioutlet.net>; <guccibagsonsales.net>; <guccibags-shop.net>; <guccibagsshops.com>; <guccibags2u.net>; <gucciborse2013.com>; <gucci-gucciwatches.com>; <gucci-gucciwatches.net>; <guccihandbagsales.com>; <guccihandbags-guccioutlet.com>; <guccihandbagsofficial.com>; <guccihandbagsonsales.net>; <guccihandbagssales.com>; <guccihandbags2012.net>; <guccimensshoesstore.com>; <gucci-online.net>; <guccionsale.com>; <guccioutletaonline.com>; <guccioutletcom.com>; <guccioutleteonline.com>; <guccioutletguccionline.com>; <guccioutlet-guccionline.net>; <guccioutletmallonline.com>; <gucci-outletofficial.net>; <guccioutlet-onlinesstore.com>; <guccioutletonlinesstore.com>; <guccioutletonline-store.com>; <guccioutletonline-store.net>; <guccioutletonline2.com>; <guccioutletonline2.net>; <guccioutletonlinstores.net>; <guccioutletsonlineshop.com>; <guccioutletsonlinestore.com>; <guccioutletsonlinestore.net>; <guccioutletsonlineus.com>; <guccioutletsstore.com>; <guccioutletstoreus.com>; <guccisbagsonsale.net>; <guccisbagsoutlet.com>; <guccishandbag-outlet.com>; <guccishandbag-outlet.net>; <guccishandbagsonline.com>; <guccishandbagsonline.net>; <guccishandbags-outlet.com>; <guccishoes-guccioutlet.com>; <guccishoes-guccioutlet.net>; <guccishoeshop.net>; <guccishoesshope.com>; <guccishoesshope.net>; <guccishoesshop.net>; <guccishoes-store.com>; <guccishoesstores.net>; <gucci-shoes-usa.com>; <guccishoes-usstore.com>; <guccishoesusstore.net>; <guccishoes2012.net>; <guccisshoesstore.com>; <guccitoutletonline.com>; <gucciushop.com>; <gucciushop.net>; <gucciusshops.com>; <gucciwatcheshop.com>; <gucciwatchesonlinestore.com>; <gucciwatches2012.com>; <gucciwatches2012.net>; <gucci1923s.com>; <gucci2sale.com>; <onlineguccibags.net>; <online-gucci.com>; <online-guccioutlet.com>; <onlineguccioutlet.com>; <outlet-guccibags.net>; <outletguccibags.net>; <outletonline-gucci.com>; <outletsguccibags.com>; <outletsguccibags.net>; <replicaguccishoes.com>; <salebagsongucci.com>; <shoesgucci-store.com>; <shoesguccistore.com>; <shoesguccistore.net>; <topguccionline.com>; <usa-guccihandbags.com>; <usa-guccihandbags.net>; <usaguccioutletstore.com>; <us-guccibags.com>; <us-guccibags.net>; <us-guccihandbags.com>; <wholesalegucci-sale.com>.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 12, 2012. On November 12, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 13, 14, 20, and 30, 2012, the Registrars transmitted by email separately to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrants and providing the contact details. On November 27, 2012, the Center received an amendment to the Complaint, in which the Complainant requested that certain expired domain names be excluded from the proceeding.

On December 5, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On December 5, 2012, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on December 14, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 3, 2013. On December 14, 2012, the Center received an email inquiry from “Pearly Tan” with an email address […]@gmail.com, which is used by the Respondent Wang Jie in registering some of the disputed domain names, claiming that his/her email address was falsely used by one of the registrants of certain of the disputed domain names, and claiming that Pearly Tan is not related to Wang Jie. The Respondents did not submit any formal Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on January 4, 2013.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 17, 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

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company incorporated in Italy.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the trade mark GUCCI (the “Trade Mark”).

The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark in the fashion field.

B. Respondent

The Respondents¹ are individuals or corporations which appear to have addresses in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Names

The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant made the following submissions in the Complaint.

The Complainant is a subsidiary of one of the world’s leading fashion groups. The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark used by the Complainant worldwide. The Trade Mark achieved 38^th place in the 2012 Interbrand ranking of the world’s leading brands. It was first used in 1921.

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. They incorporate in their entirety the Trade Mark together with non-distinctive words such as “discount”, “bag/s”, “fashion”, “shoes”, “online”, “sale/s”, “authentic”, “outlet”, “replica”, “shop/s”, “bet”, “factory”, “vip”, “watches”, “handbag/s”, “official”, “sell”, “men”, “mall”, “shoes”, “smart”, “watches”, “top”, “wholesale” and “borsa/borse” (bag/s in Italian).

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Most of the disputed domain names have been linked to websites which feature the Trade Mark as well as images and logos taken from the Complainant’s official websites and advertising, and which offer for sale counterfeit GUCCI products at much cheaper prices than original GUCCI products. A small number of the disputed domain names are otherwise being passively held.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not making a bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.

Given the notoriety of the Trade Mark, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in order to capitalise on the reputation of the Trade Mark by diverting Internet users seeking products under the Trade Mark to the Websites for commercial gain, by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trade Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Websites and/or the goods offered or promoted through the Websites.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Language of the Proceeding

The language of the registration agreements for the 128 disputed domain names is Chinese.

Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. No agreement has been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English.

Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0593).

The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) The disputed domain names use English and Italian text and not Chinese characters;

(2) The Websites are English language websites; and

(3) Conducting the proceeding in a language other than English would delay the proceeding, would incur significant translation costs on the part of the Complainant, and would be unfair to the Complainant.

The Respondent did not file a Response and did not file any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432).

The Panel finds that sufficient evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language (Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, supra). The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.

In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore finds it is not foreseeable that the Respondent would be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2 Consolidation of Respondents

UDRP jurisprudence suggests consolidation of multiple respondents may be appropriate, under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, even where differently named domain name registrants are involved, where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names or the websites to which the domain names resolve (Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No. D2010-0281).

The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence in support of its submissions that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, including a spreadsheet listing the common factors linking the disputed domain names.

The arguments relied upon by the Complainant in support of its consolidation request include:

(1) The use of common registration information such as administrative contact details, technical contact details, postal addresses, email addresses, IP addresses, and telephone and fax numbers;

(2) The use of the same or similar names in the registration information;

(3) Resolving disputed domain names to the same or similar Websites;

(4) Using the same domain name servers;

(5) Using the same registrars; and

(6) Close similarity between the disputed domain names, each of which incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety in conjunction with non-distinctive, generic or geographical terms.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are under the control of a single individual or entity, or, at least, are under the control of a group of individuals acting in concert.

In order to demonstrate common control, the Complainant has divided the disputed domain names into 12 groups. The disputed domain names listed in the first 10 groups are commonly directed to the same or similar Websites. The eleventh group lists those of the disputed domain names which are passively held. The last group of disputed domain names are redirected to Websites other than those listed in the first 10 groups.

Each of these groupings has been listed in Schedule A of this Decision.²

In addition to being redirected to the same or similar Websites for each of the respective groups, there is commonalty in respect of at least one, and in most cases several, of the integers listed above linking the disputed domain names across each of these 12 groupings.

The Respondent did not file a Response and did not file any submissions with respect to consolidation of the Respondents.

In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes sufficient evidence has been adduced to enable the conclusion to be drawn that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names.

In all the circumstances, the Panel determines, under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, that consolidation of the Respondents is procedurally efficient and equitable to all the parties, is consistent with the Policy and Rules, and comports with prior relevant UDRP decisions in respect of this issue.

6.3 Decision

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the dates of registration of the disputed domain names by over 90 years.

UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).

It is also established that the addition of generic terms to a disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253); furthermore, mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does generally not exclude the likelihood of confusion (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2006-0189).

Each of the disputed domain names comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety together with non-distinctive and generic words, geographic indicators or numbers, none of which serve in the Panel’s opinion to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trade Mark in any significant way.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names:

(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organisation) has been commonly known by the disputed domain names even if the Respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Marks. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Marks which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names by over 90 years. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).

The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have been used in a manner which, under the circumstances, the Panel cannot consider as bona fide, either:

1. In respect of the Websites, which have not been authorised by the Complainant, and appear to offer for sale counterfeit, or at the least heavily discounted, GUCCI products, and which reproduce the Trade Mark as well as logos and images taken from the Complainant’s websites and advertising; or

2. Have been passively held.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following conduct amounts to registration and use in bad faith on the part of the Respondent:

By using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.

The Respondent has clearly engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering the disputed domain names comprising the Trade Mark, without the authorisation or approval of the Complainant, in order to profit by attracting users to the Websites. Irrespective of whether the goods on the Websites are in fact counterfeit GUCCI products, the Panel notes the Websites contain the Trade Mark as well as images and logos taken from the Complainant’s official GUCCI websites and advertising. The Panel finds such use of the disputed domain names in this manner is clear evidence of bad faith. The Panel therefore finds, in all the circumstances, the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

It is trite, under UDRP jurisprudence, that passive holding of domain names can, in certain circumstances, amount to bad faith. In all the circumstances of this proceeding, and given in particular the evidence suggesting that each of the disputed domain names are subject to common control, the Panel concludes there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of bad faith in respect of those of the disputed domain names that are being passively held.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.

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 names <borse-gucciborse.com>, <borse-gucciborse.net>, <borsegucciborses.com>, <discountguccibagsus.com>, <fashionguccishoes.com>, <gucciashoesonline.com>, <gucciashoesonline.net>, <guccibagsales.net>, <guccibagsauthentic.com>, <guccibagsguccioutlet.net>, <gucci-bags.net>, <guccibagsonsales.net>, <guccibagsonsaleu.com>, <guccibagsreplica.com>, <guccibags-shop.net>, <guccibagsshops.com>, <guccibags2u.net>, <gucci-bet.com>, <gucci-borse.com>, <gucciborse2013.com>, <gucci-ebags.com>, <guccifactoryoutletonlinevip.com>, <gucci-gucciwatches.com>, <gucci-gucciwatches.net>, <guccihandbagsales.com>, <guccihandbags-guccioutlet.com>, <guccihandbagsofficial.com>, <guccihandbagsonsales.net>, <guccihandbagsonsell.com>, <guccihandbagssales.com>, <guccihandbags2012.net>, <guccimensshoesstore.com>, <gucci-online.net>, <guccionsale.com>, <guccioutletaonline.com>, <guccioutletcom.com>, <guccioutleteonline.com>, <guccioutletguccionline.com>, <guccioutlet-guccionline.net>, <guccioutletmallonline.com>, <gucci-outletofficial.net>, <guccioutletofficial.net>, <guccioutletonlinea.org>, <gucci-outlet-online.com>, <guccioutletonlinene.com>, <guccioutlet-onlinesstore.com>, <guccioutletonlinesstore.com>, <guccioutletonline-store.com>, <guccioutletonline-store.net>, <guccioutletonlinevip1.com>, <guccioutletonline2.com>, <guccioutletonline2.net>, <guccioutletonlinstores.net>, <guccioutletsonlineshop.com>, <guccioutletsonlinestore.com>, <guccioutletsonlinestore.net>, <guccioutletsonlineus.com>, <guccioutletsstore.com>, <guccioutletstoreline.com>, <guccioutletstoreus.com>, <guccioutlet2u.com>, <guccisbagsonsale.com>, <guccisbagsonsale.net>, <guccisbagsoutlet.com>, <guccishandbag-outlet.com>, <guccishandbag-outlet.net>, <guccishandbagsonline.com>, <guccishandbagsonline.net>, <guccishandbags-outlet.com>, <guccishoes-guccioutlet.com>, <guccishoes-guccioutlet.net>, <guccishoeshop.net>, <guccishoesmart.com>, <guccishoesofficial.net>, <guccishoes-outlet.com>, <guccishoesoutlet.net>, <guccishoesoutletstore.net>, <guccishoesshope.com>, <guccishoesshope.net>, <guccishoesshop.net>, <guccishoes-store.com>, <guccishoesstores.net>, <gucci-shoes-usa.com>, <guccishoes-usstore.com>, <guccishoesusstore.com>, <guccishoesusstore.net>, <guccishoes2012.net>, <guccis.net>, <guccisshoesonline.com>, <guccisshoesonline.net>, <guccisshoesoutlet.com>, <guccisshoesstore.com>, <guccitoutletonline.com>, <guccitoutletonline.net>, <gucciushop.com>, <gucciushop.net>, <gucciusshops.com>, <gucciwatcheshop.com>, <gucciwatchesonlinestore.com>, <gucciwatches2012.com>, <gucciwatches2012.net>, <gucci-wholesale.com>, <gucci1923s.com>, <gucci2sale.com>, <onlineguccibags.net>, <online-gucci.com>, <online-guccioutlet.com>, <onlineguccioutlet.com>, <online-gucci-store.com>, <outlet-guccibags.net>, <outletguccibags.net>, <outletonline-gucci.com>, <outletsguccibags.com>, <outletsguccibags.net>, <replicaguccishoes.com>, <salebagsongucci.com>, <shoesgucci-store.com>, <shoesguccistore.com>, <shoesguccistore.net>, <sunglasses-gucci.com>, <topguccionline.com>, <usa-guccihandbags.com>, <usa-guccihandbags.net>, <usaguccioutletstore.com>, <us-guccibags.com>, <us-guccibags.net>, <us-guccihandbags.com> and <wholesalegucci-sale.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2013

SCHEDULE A

GROUP 1 – Disputed domain names redirected to “www.guccibagsonsaleu.com” (previously redirected to “www.guccihandbagsonsell.com”)

Email address published on the website: sales@guccibagsales.com

1. <guccibagsonsaleu.com>

2. <guccihandbagsonsell.com>

3. <guccisbagsonsale.net>

4. <guccibagsonsales.net>

5. <guccibags-shop.net>

6. <guccihandbagsonsales.net>

7. <guccibagsshops.com>

8. <salebagsongucci.com>

9. <guccisbagsonsale.com>

GROUP 2 - Disputed domain names redirected to “www.guccioutletonlinevip1.com” (previously redirected to “www.guccifactoryoutletonlinevip.com”)

Email address published on the website: sale@guccis.net

1. <guccioutletonlinevip1.com>

2. <guccifactoryoutletonlinevip.com>

3. <guccihandbagsofficial.com>

4. <guccihandbags2012.net>

5. <guccibagsguccioutlet.net>

6. <guccishandbags-outlet.com>

7. <guccishandbag-outlet.com>

8. <outlet-guccibags.net>

9. <outletguccibags.net>

10. <outletsguccibags.com>

11. <outletsguccibags.net>

12. <guccishandbagsonline.net>

13. <onlineguccibags.net>

14. <guccibagsales.net>

15. <guccihandbagsales.com>

16. <us-guccibags.net>

17. <us-guccihandbags.com>

18. <us-guccibags.com>

19. <usa-guccihandbags.com>

20. <usa-guccihandbags.net>

21. <gucci-ebags.com>

22. <onlineguccioutlet.com>

GROUP 3 – List of disputed domain names previously redirected to “www.guccisshoesonline.net”, then redirected to “www.gucciashoesonline.com”, and currently redirected to “www.gucciashoesonline.net”

Email address published on the website: merryt400@gmail.com

1. <guccisshoesonline.net>

2. <gucciashoesonline.com>

3. <gucciashoesonline.net>

4. <guccishoesusstore.com>

5. <guccishoes-guccioutlet.net>

6. <guccishoesusstore.net>

7. <guccishoeshop.net>

8. <guccishoes-usstore.com>

9. <guccishoesshope.net>

10. <guccishoesstores.net>

11. <guccisshoesstore.com>

12. <guccishoes-store.com>

13. <shoesguccistore.com>

14. <shoesguccistore.net>

15. <gucci-shoes-usa.com>

16. <guccishoesshope.com>

17. <shoesgucci-store.com>

18. <guccishoesshop.net>

19. <guccishoes-outlet.com>

20. <fashionguccishoes.com>

21. <replicaguccishoes.com>

22. <guccishoes2012.net>

23. <guccimensshoesstore.com>

24. <guccishoesoutletstore.net>

25. <guccishoesoutlet.net>

26. <guccishoes-guccioutlet.com>

27. <guccishoesofficial.net>

28. <guccisshoesoutlet.com>

29. <gucci1923s.com>

GROUP 4 – List of disputed domain names previously redirected to “www.guccitoutletonline.com” and currently redirected to “www.guccitoutletonline.net”

Email address published on the website: merryt00@gmail.com

1. <guccitoutletonline.com>

2. <guccitoutletonline.net>

3. <guccioutletonlinesstore.com>

4. <guccioutletonline-store.com>

5. <guccioutletonlinstores.net>

6. <guccioutlet-onlinesstore.com>

7. <guccioutletsonlinestore.com>

8. <guccioutlet-guccionline.net>

9. <guccioutletsonlinestore.net>

10. <guccioutletsonlineshop.com>

11. <guccioutletonline2.com>

12. <guccioutletmallonline.com>

13. <guccioutletonline2.net>

14. <guccioutletsonlineus.com>

15. <guccioutletonline-store.net>

16. <online-gucci.com>

17. <topguccionline.com>

18. <guccihandbagssales.com>

19. <guccioutletcom.com>

20. <guccibagsauthentic.com>

GROUP 5 – List of disputed domain names redirected to “www.gucci-gucciwatches.net”

Email addresses published on the website: Sales@gucciwatches.cc; coolwang26@gmail.com

1. <gucci-gucciwatches.net>

2. <gucciwatches2012.com>

3. <gucciwatches2012.net>

4. <gucciwatcheshop.com>

5. <gucciwatchesonlinestore.com>

6. <gucci-gucciwatches.com>

7. <guccioutletofficial.net>

GROUP 6 - List of disputed domain names redirected to “www.usaguccioutletstore.com”

Email address published on the website: smithoutlet@gmail.com

1. <usaguccioutletstore.com>

2. <gucciushop.net>

3. <gucciusshops.com>

4. <guccioutletstoreus.com>

5. <gucci2sale.com>

6. <wholesalegucci-sale.com>

GROUP 7 - List of disputed domain names redirected to “www.guccioutletstoreline.com”

Email address published on the website: merryt400@gmail.com

1. <guccioutletstoreline.com>

2. <guccioutletonlinene.com>

3. <outletonline-gucci.com>

4. <guccioutletonlinea.org>

5. <guccioutletaonline.com>

GROUP 8 - List of disputed domain names redirected to “www.gucci-outlet-online.com”

Email address published on the website: None

1. <gucci-outlet-online.com>

2. <gucci-bet.com>

3. <guccihandbags-guccioutlet.com>

GROUP 9 - List of disputed domain names redirected to “www.gucci-online.net”

Email address published on the website: None

1. <gucci-online.net>

2. <guccioutletsstore.com>

3. <guccibagsreplica.com>

GROUP 10 - List of disputed domain names redirected to “www.guccibags2u.net”

Email address published on the website: None

1. <guccibags2u.net>

2. <guccioutlet2u.com>

3. <online-guccioutlet.com>

4. <guccioutletguccionline.com>

GROUP 11 - List of inactive disputed domain names

1. <guccishandbagsonline.com>

2. <guccisbagsoutlet.com>

3. <gucciushop.com>

4. <gucci-bags.net>

5. <guccishandbag-outlet.net>

6. <sunglasses-gucci.com>

7. <online-gucci-store.com>

8. <discountguccibagsus.com>

GROUP 12 - List of disputed domain names redirected to different websites

1. <guccioutleteonline.com>

2. <borsegucciborses.com>

3. <gucciborse2013.com>

4. <gucci-borse.com>

5. <borse-gucciborse.com>

6. <borse-gucciborse.net>

7. <guccionsale.com>

8. <guccishoesmart.com>

9. <guccis.net>

10. <gucci-outletofficial.net>

¹ For ease of reference, the Panel shall refer to the Respondents in the singular (the “Respondent”) for the remainder of this Decision.

² The Panel notes that two domain names, <guccisshoesonline.com> and <gucci-wholesale.com>, are not included in the Complainant’s listed groupings. The Panel finds however that sufficient evidence has been presented in the Complaint (i.e. registrant name) for the Panel to conclude that the consolidation of the Complaint with regards to these two domain names is proper.