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

Balenciaga v. Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org / Registrant ID: DI_11510492 Wan Hao, Danshi

Case No. D2010-2082

1. The Parties

Complainant is Balenciaga of Paris, France, represented by Sylvain Hirsch of IP Twins S.A.S., France.

Respondent is Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org / Registrant ID: DI_11510492 Wan Hao, Danshi of Moergestel, the Netherlands and Shishou City, Hubei, People’s Republic of China, respectively.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <balenciaga-handbags.org> is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. 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 December 3, 2010. On December 3, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 2010, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 8, 2010 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 13, 2010.

The Center verified that the amended 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 Respondent of the Amended Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 16, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 5, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 7, 2011.

The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 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

Complainant is a French company with worldwide operations in the fashion and apparel business. Complainant holds numerous trademarks that include BALENCIAGA. The marks are registered in numerous jurisdictions including the European Union, the United States of America, Canada and the People’s Republic of China. The name “Balenciaga” derives from the last name of the Spanish designer, Cristobal Balenciaga, who founded its first haute couture house in 1918. Complainant sells luxury items, including handbags, which are widely known and used and very well-known in the media. Complainant also owns multiple registered websites making use of the Balenciaga name. The disputed domain name was registered on or about May 3, 2010.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant maintains that Respondent is obviously trading on its name, and exploiting the same for unauthorized commercial gain. Complainant asserts that it has never licensed the BALENCIAGA trademark to Respondent, and that Respondent has no right to use it. Complainant thus directly maintains that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are clearly established and requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove the following:

(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

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

(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name contains the entirety of Complainant’s well-known and extensively registered mark BALENCIAGA. The addition of the word “handbags” only adds to the confusion created by the disputed domain name, as this is one of Complainant’s products. Thus the first element of the Policy listed above is readily met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant clearly asserts that Respondent has no connection, license or other rights to the use of Complainant’s marks or name. Nor is there any evidence or basis to infer that Respondent has any such rights, or is known by the name Balenciaga. By failing to answer the Complaint, Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore successfully established the second requirement of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the Panel’s view the long standing renown of the BALENCIAGA mark and brand is such that it is clear that Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights. This is further confirmed by an examination of the contents of the site to which the disputed domain name resolves, and which was submitted in copy by Complainant. The site is dedicated to the sale of Balenciaga handbags and other purported Balenciaga products. This is a precise example of the type of bad faith registration and use listed at 4(b) of the Policy. Thus Complainant has met and proven paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy as well, as it has made clear that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for “commercial gain… by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of [the disputed] web site or location or of a product or service on [the disputed] web site or location” pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <balenciaga-handbags.org>, be transferred to Complainant.

Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 18, 2011

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/