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

Etam SAS v. Domain Administrator, See Privacyguardian.org / Carry Wong

Case No. D2019-0205

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Etam SAS of Clichy, France, represented by Domgate, France.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See Privacyguardian.org of Phoenix, United States of America (“United States”) / Carry Wong of Yichang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <maillotdebainetam.com>, <maillotdebainundiz.com> are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2019. On January 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 29, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 30, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 31, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 26, 2019.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2019. 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 has 99 trademark registrations in France and as a European Union trademark for the trademark ETAM alone or combined with other elements.

The Complainant has 14 trademark registrations in France and as a European Union trademark for the trademark UNDIZ alone or combined with other elements.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on September 28, 2018. The disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying articles about the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Etam group existed since 1916, has 1405 stores all over the world, sells its products on line and achieves sales in the range of hundreds of millions of Euros. The trademarks UNDIZ and ETAM are owned by the Complainant who sells underwear and bathing suits. The Complainant owns the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ, which are wholly incorporated in the disputed domain names. The use of the generic terms “maillot de bain”, which means “bathing suit” in French, does not eliminate the similarity between the Complainants’ trademarks and the disputed domain names. In fact, the use of a generic name of a product sold by the Complainant only reinforces the confusion.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. The Complainant sent a number of communications to the Respondent but all of these remained unanswered. Both trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ enjoy notoriety in France. The use of the French words for bathing suit by the Respondent confirms its knowledge of these trademarks. Both domain names resolve to websites where bathing suits can be bought and where articles about the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ are posted. The sold items do not bear said trademarks but users of the site are led to believe that the sold items are ETAM or UNDIZ items. Further, there are no information on these websites about the company operating them. These could be scam sites. These sites clearly target French customers. The Respondent’s intent must have been to attract traffic to its websites where bathing suits are sold. As a result, the Respondent is not making a bona fide, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant never authorized or licensed the Respondent the use of the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ. The Respondent is not commonly known by the dispute domain names and is not the owner of the two trademarks.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have known of the trademarks of the Complainant as it is using the term bathing suits in French, and this is a product sold by the Complainant. Furthermore, the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve include articles on the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ. One of the sites also leads to the official website of ETAM. Generally, the sites resolve to a commercial website. It is however not possible to ascertain that the two commercial websites belong to the Respondent but there are strong indications that they do. The domain names are protected by a privacy service. The Respondent is making a commercial gain by attracting Internet traffic.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant holds many trademark registrations for the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ.

The disputed domain names comprise the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety. The disputed domain names contain the generic terms “maillot de bain”, which means bathing suit in French. The use of generic terms do not help eliminate the confusing similarity. On the contrary, it reinforces in the current scenario the confusion as the Complainant sells bathing suits.

The gTLD “.com” may typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as held by prior UDRP panels.

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to the Complainant’s contestations set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks as part of the disputed domain names.

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 names. 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 names. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent clearly knew the Group ETAM, its trademarks and its products. The Respondent’s knowledge is proven by the facts that the trademark ETAM is very well-known and particularly in the French market, that the Group ETAM has been in existence for a century, that the disputed domain names include the French equivalent of the term bathing suit, which is a product of the Complainant and that articles about the ETAM group and the UNDIZ brand are posted on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve. In fact, the website to which the disputed domain name <maillotdebainetam.com> resolves includes a link to the official site of the Complainant. This is an indication of bad faith registration.

Another indication of bad faith is the use of privacy service and the lack of response to the various communications sent by the Complainant. Additionally, the disputed domain names resolve to websites which allow accessing websites where bathing suits are sold. It is therefore clear that the domain names are being used to attract Internet traffic for commercial gain.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 names <maillotdebainetam.com> and <maillotdebainundiz.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: March 5, 2019

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/