À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org/ Timmy Smith

Case No. D2011-2051

1. The Parties

The Complainant is PRL USA Holdings, Inc., of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is PrivacyProtect.org, of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia and Timmy Smith, of Orlando, Florida, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)

The disputed domain names <ralphlauren-america.com> and <ralphlauren-usa.com> are registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2011. On November 21, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 23, 2011, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 23, 2011 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 23, 2011.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 14, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 16, 2011.

The Center appointed Ik Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on December 28, 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

The Panel finds that the Complainant is a well-known American luxury clothing and goods company, the products and services of which are regularly featured in a wide variety of media worldwide. The Complainant and its predecessors have used the RALPH LAUREN mark since 1967 and the Complainant holds trademark registrations in the RALPH LAUREN family of marks.

The Respondent appears to be an individual with a residence in the state of Florida, who may have at one point used the services at the website <privacyprotect.org> in order to withhold his personal information from the registration details for the disputed domain names.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the RALPH LAUREN trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Namely, the Complainant has continuously and extensively used the mark from as early 1967, and has owned trademark registrations in the RALPH LAUREN family of marks since 1987. The additional portions “america” and “usa” need not be considered as they are merely geographic indications.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant explains that email addresses utilizing the disputed domain names were used to illegally obtain personal financial information from consumers. This shows the Respondent’s attempt to obtain improper revenue from the reputation and goodwill of the RALPH LAUREN mark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds trademark registrations for RALPH LAUREN in the United States. The disputed domain names <ralphlauren-america.com> and <ralphlauren-usa.com> entirely incorporate the Respondent's trademark, and simply add the additional portions “america” and “usa” which are merely geographic indicators that do not influence the similarity test. Accordingly, <ralphlauren-america.com> and <ralphlauren-usa.com> can be viewed as confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once such a prima facie basis has been established, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating his rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no Response. Accordingly, there is no evidence or allegation in the record that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.

For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the second element has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that there are more than sufficient reasons to find bad faith in this case. The Respondent created email addresses utilizing the disputed domain names ([…]@ralphlauren-america.com and […]@ralphlauren-usa.com) and contacted job-seekers from these email addresses falsely claiming to be a “senior staffing coordinator” for the Complainant. To accept the positions, the Respondent directed job-seekers to a credit report page, where they were instructed to provide personal financial information. These facts clearly show that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, the Complainant’s business and the Complainant’s rights in the RALPH LAUREN trademark. Further, by carrying out this scheme, the Complainant misappropriated the Complainant’s trademark and the associated good will and reputation, as a means of defrauding consumers and stealing their personal information. Such use is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use.

For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that this third and final element has been established.

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 names <ralphlauren-america.com> and <ralphlauren-usa.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ik Hyun Seo
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2012

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