WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Richemont International S.A. v. Labo labo

Case No. D2021-3839

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Richemont International S.A., Switzerland, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Labo labo, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jeager-lecoultre.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 17, 2021. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 18, 2021, 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 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2021.

The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on December 21, 2021. 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 Richemont International S.A, is a leading provider of luxury wrist watches and clocks marketed and sold under the trade name Jaeger-LeCoultre. It was founded in 1833 and has offered its luxury watches across the world for more than 180 years.

The Complainant is the reference in high-end watchmaking with its 398 registered patents and a vast heritage encompassing 1,242 calibers.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations consisting of or containing the words “jaeger-lecoultre”, which have been registered in numerous countries all over the world, before the registration of the disputed domain name. Amongst others, International trademark registration JAEGER-LECOULTRE, No. 728696, registered on December 6, 1999, in international classes 1 to 42.

This disputed domain <jeager-lecoultre.com>, registered on August 26, 2021, resolves to a parking site displaying the text “Welcome to CentOS”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to its JAEGER-LECOULTRE trademark as it incorporates the whole trademark swopping the letter “e” and “a” in the name “jaeger”.

The Complainant submits that its registered JAEGER-LECOULTRE trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. By applying the identical or confusing similarity test under the Policy, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, due to the Respondent misspelling the trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE by swapping the letter “e” and “a” in the name “jaeger”.

The Complainant contends that where a domain name consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element. The Complainant requests that the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i).

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to advance legitimate interests.

The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name including its trademarks.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporate the words “jeager-lecoultre”.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE. Indeed, the misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain <jeager-lecoultre.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has therefore, been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark.

The Respondent has not demonstrated that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that there is no relationship with the Respondent that gives rise to any license, permit, or other right to which the Respondent could enjoy such use of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s JAEGER-LECOULTRE trademark.

The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Likewise, no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfills the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, which the Respondent did not to rebut.

On the evidence adduced it is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of the Complainant’s name, trademark, reputation and goodwill when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

In The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., v. H. Pouran, WIPO Case No. D2002-0770, the panel held: “The Respondent knew or should have known of the existence of the Complainant, [as] the Complainant’s trademark [was] widely publicized globally and constantly featured throughout the Internet, and thus the Panel decides that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name knowing that it is likely to attract interest from Internet users who are searching for the Complainant. It is clear that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name and it have not acquired any right or legitimate interest to use the disputed domain name since its registration either.

The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE only in that the letters “e” and the second “a” in “jaeger” were swapped; this is a typical case of typosquatting.

Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent, since it is not believable that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its rights.

In the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive Complainant’s trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE with a common, and an obvious intentional misspelling – swapping the letter “e” and “a” in “jaeger”. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with general information about a computer operating system, CentOS, without explicit reference to the Complainant. In addition, MX servers were configured in the disputed domain name, which indicates a risk that the Respondent potentially uses the disputed domain name to create an email address.

Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to present any evidence of any good faith registration and use with regard to the disputed domain name, along with the fact, that there is no plausible reason for authorized or bona fide future active usage with regard to the disputed domain name by the Respondent (Exiros.AR S.A. v. ranjain candy, WIPO Case No. D2021-2916).

On the basis of these findings, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith according to 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 <jeager-lecoultre.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Eva Fiammenghi
Sole Panelist
Date: January 4, 2022