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 eMadrid Reference 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


Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. John Zamora

Case No. D2013-1857

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft of Triesen, Liechtenstein, represented by LegalBase (Pvt) Limited, Sri Lanka.

The Respondent is John Zamora of San Antonio, Texas, United States of America (the “USA”).

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <swarovski-australia.com>, <swarovski-canada.com>, <swarovskigioielli.com>,

<swarovski-india.com>, <swarovskioutlet-uk.com> and <swarovskisingapore.com> are registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 4 and November 5, 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 November 13, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 3, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 4, 2013.

The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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

The Complainant manufactures and sells products using cut crystal, gemstones and created stones. It is the owner of a large number of trademark registrations for the name SWAROVSKI, including a European Community trademark registration number 3895091, which was registered on August 23, 2005 and a US trademark registration number 1739479, which was registered on December 15, 1992. The disputed domain names were all registered on July 22, 2013. The Complainant markets its products through a number of domain names, notably <swarovski.com>, registered on January 11, 1996 and <swarovski.net> registered on April 16, 1998.

The disputed domain names were all registered by the Respondent on the same date. They all contain the Complainant’s trademark SWAROVSKI. The Panel concludes that it is appropriate to deal with complaint as a single case in the interests of efficiency.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

This section contains the Complainant’s submissions with which the Panel may or may not agree.

The Respondent is operating websites at the disputed domain names, advertising for sale various of the Complainant’s products or items that purport to be them, using the Complainant’s marks. The Respondent does not indicate that he is independent of the Complainant.

The addition of the terms “outlet” and “gioielli”, the Italian word for jewellery, and the addition of geographic terms such as “Canada”, “India”, “Singapore”, the “UK” and “Australia” to the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names does not differentiate the disputed domain names sufficiently to prevent confusion among consumers or lessen the similarity between the dispute domain names containing these words and the Complainant’s mark. The addition of a geographic name or indicator or a common word to a trademark does not differentiate the dispute domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the Complainant’s trademark, SWAROVSKI, in any manner. The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain names and has no legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademark, SWAROVSKI. The selection of domain names that incorporate such a well-known trademark has clearly been done to mislead consumers into believing that the Respondent is associated with and approved by the Complainant.

The Respondent clearly knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain names. The Complainant’s trademark is extremely well-known worldwide and the Respondent has proceeded to use to sell goods from its websites using that trademark. “Swarovski” is not a descriptive or generic term. The Respondent has sought to use the Complainant’s trademark to attract consumers to his websites in order to sell them products for consumer gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove with respect to each disputed domain name that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and

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

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Four of the disputed domain names involve the addition of a country’s name to the Complainant’s trademark and the necessary generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. One involves the addition instead of the Italian word for jewelry and another, the English word “outlet”, a hyphen and the initials “uk” denoting the United Kingdom. The Complainant’s trademark is a well-known but made-up name. The addition to the Complainant’s trademark of generic words or the names of countries and the gTLD “.com” to form the disputed domain names does not detract from the otherwise clearly confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, SWAROVSKI. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not called “Swarovski” or anything similar and does not appear to engage in a legitimate trade under that or any related name. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trademark is a well-known, distinctive made-up word with no independent meaning. The Respondent clearly knew of its existence when registering the disputed domain name because shortly after registering that disputed domain names, he was already using the Complainant’s trademark to sell products through the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve. The Respondent is still using the disputed domain names to sell what purport to be the Complainant’s products.

It seems apparent from this that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names to divert customers seeking the Complainant’s products to the Respondent’s websites and online shops contained in them. There, he hoped to sell products using the Complainant’s trademark.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and has been using each of the disputed domain names 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 names <swarovski-australia.com>, <swarovski-canada.com>, <swarovskigioielli.com>, <swarovski-india.com>, <swarovskioutlet-uk.com> and <swarovskisingapore.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: December 18, 2013