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

Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. v. Ergo Computers Pty Ltd

Case No. DAU2016-0031

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. of Firenze, Italy, represented by Studio Legale SIB, Italy.

The Respondent is Ergo Computers Pty Ltd of Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ferragamo.com.au> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Web Address Registration Pty Ltd.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 5, 2016. That day, the Center transmitted by email to Web Address Registration Pty Ltd a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 8, 2016, Web Address Registration Pty Ltd transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details of the Respondent.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “.auDRP”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au 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 August 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 4, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 5, 2016.

The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 2016. 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 a very well known Italian company manufacturing and selling shoes, handbags and other fashion articles. Its founder, Salvatore Ferragamo, became known as “shoemaker to the stars” for his work in creating hand made shoes for the film industry. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous FERRAGAMO registered trademarks and domain names around the world. For the purposes of this decision it is sufficient to refer to Australian valid and subsisting registered trademark No. 758865, FERRAGAMO, registered on November 16, 1998 in Class 9 for eyeglasses of various kinds and in Class 25 for various articles of clothing for men, women and children. The Complainant operates retail outlets in Australia, including in Perth, where the Respondent is located.

The Domain Name was registered on March 11, 2011. It resolves to a parking page which displays the statement that the Domain Name “is registered and secured with CrazyDomains.co.uk”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant says the Domain Name is identical to its FERRAGAMO trademark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, which the Respondent both registered and has used in bad faith.

As to legitimacy, the Complainant says the Respondent, who is not known by and does not trade under the Domain Name and makes no legitimate commercial use of it, is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor authorised or licensed by the Complainant to use the FERRAGAMO mark in the Domain Name or at all. A worldwide Saegis search failed to find any evidence of ownership by the Respondent of any FERRAGAMO mark.

As to bad faith, the Complainant says the Respondent certainly knew of the Complainant’s FERRAGAMO mark when it registered and started using the Domain Name, given its similarity to the Complainant’s distinctive mark. Finally, the Respondent’s bad faith is definitely proven by an Internet search that reveals that the Respondent owns several domain names such as <lotusaustralia.com.au>, which corresponds to the well-known LOTUS trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit any response.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. In the absence of a Response, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules requires the Panel to “decide the dispute based upon the complaint”. In the event of such a “default” the Panel is required under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules “to proceed to a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.

Paragraph 4(a) of the .auDRP requires the Complainant to prove:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown that it owns numerous registered trademarks for FERRAGAMO, including Australian trademark No. 758865. The Domain Name is identical to that mark, save for the inconsequential country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) extension “com.au”, which may be disregarded.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Domain Name to be identical to the Complainant’s mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the FERRAGAMO mark is distinctive and widely known in Australia and worldwide. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent.

The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Brock Flanagan, BJF Web Design, WIPO Case No. DAU2016-0027 (August 19, 2016). The Respondent has made no attempt to do so. On the evidence before the Panel the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name; the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name; and the only use which is being made of the Domain Name since registration in 2011 is the display of the Domain Name on a parking page established by CrazyDomains.co.uk. Such use cannot be categorized as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. v. Tom O'Donnell, Prudential Energy Pty Limited, WIPO Case No. DAU2016-0021 (June 29, 2016).

In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith

Unlike the UDRP, the .auDRP does not require a showing that the Domain Name has been both registered and subsequently used in bad faith. It is sufficient to establish one or other of those circumstances.

The Domain Name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its FERRAGAMO trademark in Australia.

Apart from the inconsequential “.com.au” ccTLD extension, the Domain Name comprises solely the FERRAGAMO trademark in which the Complainant has well established and widely recognized rights. An Internet user seeing the Domain Name is likely to think that the Domain Name would lead to a website in the “.au” domain space of the Complainant or an Australian subsidiary or affiliate of the Complainant. In the Panel’s opinion, it is more likely than not that when registering the Domain Name the Respondent had the Complainant’s FERRAGAMO trademark in mind. As in “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH, “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. McDonald Cooper Properties Pty Ltd., Andrew Cooper, WIPO Case No. DAU2016-0008 (May 5, 2016), absent any contrary evidence or explanation from the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intention of benefiting from that assumed association between the Domain Name and the Complainant and was aware that the Complainant had not in any way authorised such conduct.

In the Panel’s opinion therefore, the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. It is unnecessary to consider whether the Domain Name has been used in bad faith.

7. Remedy

The Complainant has requested transfer of the Domain Name. The Complainant satisfies the eligibility criteria to become registrant of the Domain Name because the Complainant is the owner of the Australian registered FERRAGAMO trademark and the Domain Name is an exact match of that trademark.

8. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <ferragamo.com.au> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Date: September 22, 2016

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/