WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Jeanne Lanvin v. Irene Reed

Case No. D2019-3066

1. The Parties

Complainant is Jeanne Lanvin, France, represented by Hoche Societé d'Avocats, France.

Respondent is Irene Reed, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lanvinshoesstore.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 12, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 23, 2019 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 27, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 22, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 23, 2020.

The Center appointed Roberto Bianchi as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 2020. 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

Lanvin is a well-known French fashion house founded in 1885 in Paris.

Complainant owns numerous registrations for the LANVIN trademark worldwide. The following are some examples:

LANVIN, United States trademark, registration No. 0576027, registered on June 16, 1953, filed on June 2, 1952, renewed on June 18, 2013, covering men’s suits, outer shirts and neckties in Class 25, (first use in commerce 1924);

LANVIN, United States trademark, Registration No. 0782830, registered on January 5, 1965, filed on July 29, 1963, renewed on December 22, 2014, covering cuff links in Class 14 (first use in commerce January 1963), and scarves, mufflers, coats, jackets, waistcoats and trousers in Class 25 (first use in commerce 1946);

LANVIN, International trademark Registration No. 247646, registered on September 18, 1961, covering various goods in Classes 14, 23, 24, 25, and 26;

LANVIN, International trademark Registration No. 362475, registered on September 18, 1969, covering various goods in Classes 14, 18, 23, 24, 25 and 26;

LANVIN, French Registration No. 1509885, registered on January 20, 1989, covering, inter alia, jewelry, bags, clothes and other goods in Classes 14, 18, 23, 24, 25 and 26;

LANVIN, French Registration No. 345984, registered on October 31, 2006, covering various goods in Classes 9, 12 and 28.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 17, 2019.

The website at the disputed domain name resolves to an error message reading, “Hmm. We are having problems finding this site. We can`t connect to the server at ‘www.lanvinshoesstore.com’.”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the LANVIN trademark in its entirety. Further, the association of the generic term “shoes store” to the LANVIN trademark reinforces the likelihood of confusion as the domain name refers to a shoe store, which is a part of Complainant’s business.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name, and is using it for commercial purposes, although she does not have any right to do so. Respondent is not related to Complainant's business, is not one of its agents and does not carry out any activity or has any business with Complainant. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent in any way, including to register or to use the disputed domain name.

The LANVIN trademark enjoys a reputation in many countries with regard to its products (such as bags, clothes, and shoes). The LANVIN trademark is not one traders could legitimately adopt other than for creating an impression of association with Complainant.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The mark LANVIN benefits from a large media exposure, reinforced by the fact that many celebrities wear Lanvin products in public.

Further, the LANVIN trademark registration covers the United States, the country of residence of Respondent at the time of registration, and where the Lanvin products are being marketed. Indeed, Complainant owns stores located in the United States.

The disputed domain name was registered 66 years after Complainant had registered and began using the LANVIN trademark in the United States in 1953, and 23 years after Complainant had registered the <lanvin.com> domain name and began using it at its official website “www.lanvin.com” on June 8, 1996. It is unconceivable that Respondent would not have been aware of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the intent to create an impression of association with Complainant’s products. The products sold by Respondent, which are undoubtedly fake LANVIN products, are offered for sale on the website for a ridiculously low price. Respondent reproduces photos of Complainant’s website in order to mislead consumers as to the origin of the products sold on her website. Annex 9 to the Complaint. Respondent clearly uses the disputed domain name to pass herself off as Complainant in order to defraud Complainant’s customers through a fraudulent website.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has submitted ample evidence of its registrations for the mark LANVIN in various jurisdictions. See section 4 above. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that Complainant has rights in this mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

The Panel notes that in the disputed domain name the LANVIN mark, incorporated in its entirety, is a relevant element to which the descriptive or terms “shoes store” and the technically necessary generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” are added. It is well established that such kind of additions in a domain name would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with a mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LANVIN mark, in which Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that according to the corresponding WhoIs database, the registrant of the disputed domain name, i.e., Respondent, is “Irene Reed”, and there is no allegation or evidence that this person is known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the application of Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) should be discarded. Nor is Based on the record, there is also no indication that Respondent is related to Complainant in any manner, or that Complainant has given Respondent any authorization or license whatsoever to use the LANVIN mark in the disputed domain name or otherwise. In addition, the Panel agrees with Complainant and prior panels that the LANVIN trademark enjoys a strong reputation and fame in many countries with regard to fashion, clothing, apparel, etc. See cases cited in section 6 C below.

The Panel also accepts that the LANVIN trademark is not one traders could legitimately adopt other than for creating an impression of association with Complainant. In this regard, the Panel notes that, as evidenced by Complainant, the website at the disputed domain name, under the logo of “Lanvin”, is displaying offers to sell sneakers at sizable discount prices (USD 69.99 in lieu of USD 451.99, USD 476.99 or USD 626.99). Similar discount prices are advertised for dresses and bags (from 75% to 95% off). Considering these offers, Complainant’s contention that the products offered on the website at the disputed domain name are not authentic Lanvin goods certainly deserves credit. In any case, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide use under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a fair or legitimate noncommercial use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) as the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant. In the view of the Panel, Complainant has succeeded in raising a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Respondent did not present the Panel with any allegations or reasons for having registered and used the disputed domain name as shown. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that Complainant’s registrations for the mark LANVIN in France, the United States (apparently the country of domicile of Respondent) and elsewhere predate the registration of the disputed domain name by several decades. See section 4 above.

In addition, the Panel agrees with prior panels that the LANVIN mark is famous or well known. See, Jeanne Lanvin Company v. lin tao, WIPO Case No. D2013-0952 (“The Complainant’s trademark LANVIN is recognized as being a well-known trademark.”); see also Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Yinglang Hua, WIPO Case No. D2013-2009 (“LANVIN is a world-famous trademark.”); see also Jeanne Lanvin Company v. Xizhang Jiang, WIPO Case No. D2013-0344 (“In view of the global and longstanding use of the LANVIN mark, it is only reasonable for the Panel to assume that, under the circumstances, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to cash in on the fame of the LANVIN mark, and on the reputation of Complainant, who is hailed as one of the oldest fashion houses in France still in operation.”) This means that Respondent perfectly knew of, and targeted Complainant and its LANVIN mark and products at the time of registering the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case and given the use of the disputed domain name as shown, such registration was in bad faith.

As seen above, Respondent is using the disputed domain name on a website offering presumably fake fashion goods at extremely low prices, after creating an impression of association with Complainant among Internet users presumably looking for Complainant. This means that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of her website or location or of a product or service on her website or location. This is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).

The disputed domain name presently returns an error message, stating that the connection is impossible. It appears that Respondent does not consider any active use of the disputed domain name than as shown, i.e., in bad faith.

Finally, the Panel notes that Respondent failed to make any submission in this proceeding, and that the courier entrusted with delivering the notice of the Complaint was unable to do so because the physical address provided by Respondent at the time of registering the disputed domain name was wrong or incomplete, in violation of its duties under the registration agreement.

Considering all these facts and circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 name <lanvinshoesstore.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Roberto Bianchi
Sole Panelist
Date: February 10, 2020