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


13 Rattles, Inc. v. Thomas Zimmermann

Case No. D2017-2134

1. The Parties

The Complainant is 13 Rattles, Inc. of New York, New York of United States of America (“United States”), represented by Tucker & Latifi, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Thomas Zimmermann of Friedrichroda, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <r13jeans.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 November 1, 2017. On November 2, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 3, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 6, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 26, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 27, 2017.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on December 6, 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

The Complainant is a designer and manufacturer of clothing, footwear and accessories, sold under its trademark R13. The Complainant owns United States Trademark, R13, Registration No. 3771061, registered on April 6, 2010; as well as European Union Trade Mark, R13, Registration No. 015410814, registered on August 30, 2016; Turkish Trademark, R13, Registration No. 201346187, registered on May 22, 2013; and Canadian Trademark, R13, Registration No. 1787794, registered on August 9, 2017.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 13, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers for sale clothing items that seem to carry the trademark of the Complainant R13 at discounted prices.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark R13 which it uses in connection with clothing and accessories and sells them online. The Complainant’s goods are sold worldwide and online. The disputed domain name was registered years after the Complainant’s adoption of its trademark. The disputed domain name uses the trademark of the Complainant followed by the word “jeans”, which is a key product of the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a webstore which purports to sell the products of the Complainant at a discounted price but in fact sells clothing items of a cheaper quality.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the use of its trademark by the Respondent and the latter is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent cannot have a legitimate business reason for using the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is attempting to create an impression of affiliation with the Complainant and a likelihood of confusion. The Respondent’s website attracts consumers and deters them from looking for the website of the Complainant, which is an act of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for the trademark R13. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark R13.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark R13 combined with the term “jeans”, which does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the trademark R13 and may reinforce the impression of being associated with the Complainant who is a manufacturer of clothing and particularly of jeans.

The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name purports to sell R13-branded products. Even if these products are genuine, the Respondent fails to meet the test set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, as the website to which the disputed domain name resolves does not prominently disclose the relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. As such, the Panel does not consider the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to be bona fide within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark R13 as used by the Complainant is used with respect to casual clothing, including jeans. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of diverting internet traffic, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <r13jeans.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2017