À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Moncler S.R.L. v. Kaifeng Li

Case No. D2012-2195

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Moncler S.R.L. of Milan, Italy, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.

The Respondent is Kaifeng Li of Putian, Fujian, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <giubbottimonclerit2011.com>, <moncleralpins.com>, <monclerangers2u.com>, <monclerbadias.com>, <monclerbadys.com>, <monclerbransons.com>, <monclerbulgaries.com>, <monclerchamonixs.com>, <monclerchevaliers.com>, <monclerdonnait.org>, <monclerhimalayas.com>, <monclerlucies.com>, <monclermayas.com>, <monclerprezzii.com>, <monclerquincy2u.com>, <monclertoday.com>, <moncleruomo.org>, <nextmonclerit.com>, <piuminimonclerits.com>, <piuminimonclerit-2011.com>, and <piuminimonclerit2011.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 6, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 7, 2012, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that some of the disputed domain names were available for registration, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 21, 2012.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 22, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 12, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 13, 2012.

The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 2012. 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 the owner of over 500 national and international trade mark registrations including the word “Moncler” which it has used since 1952 in relation to the production of outdoor clothing and equipment. The Respondent is not currently using the disputed domain names.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the registration of the disputed domain names, and their continued use, is in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds each of the disputed domain names contains the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety along with descriptive material, usually suggesting some type of association with the Complainant or its products. There can be no doubt that the disputed domain names are identical, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).

In this case the Complainant has been unable to identify any legitimate use, or preparation to use, the disputed domain names by the Respondent. For some time, at least some of the disputed domain names seem to have been used to offer counterfeit goods for sale and also utilize the Complainant’s design mark in the websites. Such use clearly does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. At the current time, the disputed domain names are not apparently being used by the Respondent at all. Such passive holding of the disputed domain names does not, without more, give rise to rights or legitimate interests in them. Moreover, the Respondent, by failing to respond, has not offered an evidence of use, or preparation to use, to rebut this prima facie evidence that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

A pattern of registrations containing the Complainant’s trade marks, including at least some that have been used to sell counterfeit goods, and therefore all of which must be assumed by the Panel under the circumstances to have been registered with the intent of profiting from consumer confusion, must be the clearest case of registration and use in bad faith, pursuant to paragraphs 4(b)(ii) and (iv) of the Policy.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names.

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, <giubbottimonclerit2011.com>, <moncleralpins.com>, <monclerangers2u.com>, <monclerbadias.com>, <monclerbadys.com>, <monclerbransons.com>, <monclerbulgaries.com>, <monclerchamonixs.com>, <monclerchevaliers.com>, <monclerdonnait.org>, <monclerhimalayas.com>, <monclerlucies.com>, <monclermayas.com>, <monclerprezzii.com>, <monclerquincy2u.com>, <monclertoday.com>, <moncleruomo.org>, <nextmonclerit.com>, <piuminimonclerits.com>, <piuminimonclerit-2011.com>, <piuminimonclerit2011.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: December 20, 2012

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/