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

Jacquemus SAS v. Perklis Georgopoulos, The Project Garments

Case No. DEU2020-0024

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jacquemus SAS, France, represented by DBK Law Firm, France.

The Respondent is Perklis Georgopoulos, The Project Garments, Greece.

2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar

The Registry of the disputed domain name <jacquemus.eu> (hereinafter – Litigious domain name) is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the Litigious domain name is GoDaddy.com, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2020. On November 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the Litigious domain name. On December 1, 2020, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In reply to a request for clarification by the Center, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 7, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 8, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was January 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2021.

The Center appointed Mantas Rimkevičius as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5).

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a French company which manufactures and markets clothing and fashion accessories since 2013. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks in the world (hereinafter, the Trademarks), including:

- the European Union trade mark JACQUEMUS (reg. no. 018080381) registered on October 18, 2019, in classes 14, 24 and 28; and
- the national French trademark JACQUEMUS registered on December 24, 2013, (reg. no. 4057016) in classes 9, 18 and 25.

The Respondent registered the Litigious domain name <jacquemus.eu> on October 14, 2020.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant indicates that the Litigious domain name <jacquemus.eu> is identical to the Trademarks, as they are wholly reproduced in the Litigious domain name and the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) “.eu” cannot be deemed as a material distinction. Even if the indicated ccTLD was taken into consideration, since the Trademarks are reproduced identically, the Litigious domain name should be considered as confusingly similar to the Trademarks.

The Complainant further notes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Litigious domain name, provided for in Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, as the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to register and/or use the domain name, containing the Trademarks, and the Respondent was also never given a license or any other authorization to use the Trademarks. The Respondent acquired the Litigious domain name in order to offer it for sale, which cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or a fair use of a domain name, as stated in the previous case law of previous WIPO panels.

It is also contended that the Litigious domain name is registered and being used in bad faith, as the Respondent should have known of the existence of the Trademarks, which enjoy a reputation, and likely registered the Litigious domain name in hopes of generating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademarks.

As per above, the Complainant requests that this Panel issue a decision that the Litigious domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under Article 21 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or European Union law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:

- has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or

- has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Considering the substantive similarities between the ADR Rules and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel also refers to UDRP case law and analysis, where appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law

The Panel fully agrees with the contentions made by the Complainant that the Litigious domain name is identical to the Trademarks owned by the Complainant. The Second-Level Domain (“SLD”) part of the Litigious domain name “jacquemus” is identical with the Trademarks. Moreover, all letters which are used in the SLD part of the Litigious domain name coincide with the letters used in the Trademarks. The Panel is of the opinion that the ccTLD “.eu” in the Litigious domain name does not alter the identity of the Litigious domain name to the Trademarks owned by the Complainant. Most panels consider it appropriate to generally disregard the Top-Level Domain (in this case the ccTLD “.eu”) when it comes to the assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark or marks relied upon. This conclusion is in line with the case law of the other panels (please see, for example, Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company LLC and Werner Wyrsch v. Cyrus Jennings, WIPO Case No. DEU2018-0007, and Allianz SE v. George Mullan, Lease, WIPO Case No. DEU2019-0016).

Based on the arguments stated above, the Panel concludes that the Litigious domain name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the evidence provided to the Panel by the Complainant, the Panel finds that no license or other authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Trademarks or any parts thereof by the Complainant for any commercial or non-commercial reasons. No legitimate interests of the Respondent provided for in Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, have been established before the Panel.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Litigious domain name, which is identical to the Trademarks owned by the Complainant.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Article 21, Paragraph 3(a) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 establishes that bad faith, within the meaning of point (b) of Paragraph 1 of the said Regulation may be demonstrated, where circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or European Union law or to a public body.

Given the fact that the Litigious domain name was redirected to the website “www.sedo.com”, whereon it was offered for sale for EUR 15,000 (it has been proved by Annex 7 of the Complaint), the Panel concludes that by applying the analogy of law, established in Article 21, Paragraph 3(a) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004, the Litigious domain name was registered in bad faith.

Moreover, given the vast presence of the Trademarks on the Internet and the scope of their use, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent knew or at least should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s Trademarks and its reputation. Previous panels have already ruled under the UDRP that the Complainant’s trademark JACQUEMUS enjoys a growing reputation, particularly in the fashion world (please see Jacquemus SAS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245862480 / Jacob Inch, WIPO Case No. D2019-3144; and Jacquemus SAS v. wenben zhou, WIPO Case No. D2020-2073), and the Litigious domain name is identical to the Trademarks, the Panel concludes that the Litigious domain name was registered in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the Litigious domain name <jacquemus.eu> be transferred to the Complainant, which being located in France, satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration of the disputed domain name set out in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 2019/517.

Mantas Rimkevičius
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2021

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/