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

Dessange International v. MohammadHossein Fakhraei

Case No. DIR2018-0012

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dessange International of Paris, France, represented Novagraaf France, France.

The Respondent is MohammadHossein Fakhraei of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <dessange.ir> (the “Domain Name’) is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 30, 2018. On May 30, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 2, 2018, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on June 5, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 June 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 26, 2018. On June 6, 2018, the Respondent submitted an informal email communication but did not submit a formal Response. Accordingly, on June 28, 2018, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to the Panel appointment.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 2018. 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 owns the trade mark DESSANGE, registered as an International trade mark including for the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2004 for cosmetics, including hair care products.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used to link to a page offering the Domain Name and many other domain names containing third party trade marks for sale. The Respondent offered to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant for USD 100.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

DESSANGE is the family name of Jacques Dessange, the founder of the Complainant company in 1954. DESSANGE is registered as an International trade mark, including for the Islamic Republic of Iran, since 2004.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 is identical to the DESSANGE trade mark apart from the “.ir” country code name which as a descriptive part of the Domain Name indicating the Islamic Republic of Iran and does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy.

The Complainant owns many other domain names in various country codes in the same format so Internet users will automatically assume that the Domain Name relates to the Complainant’s famous brand.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, does not own any rights in it and has not been authorised by the Complainant. The Complainant is a global leader in cosmetics, especially hair care, and has over 400 salons in 47 countries including in the Middle East. The Respondent must have realised it was violating the Complainant’s rights.

The original registrant did not reply to a cease and desist letter from the Complainant and transferred the name so that it is owned by the Respondent. The Domain Name has been used to offer it and other domain names containing the famous marks of third parties for sale.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions with a formal response, however in email correspondence the Respondent offered to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant for USD 100.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” in the Domain Name does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s DESSANGE mark (registered, inter alia, as an International registration including the Islamic Republic of Iran for cosmetics including hair care products since 2004) as the “.ir” ccTLD is a necessary part of the Domain Name indicating the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not a part of any trade mark involved in these proceedings.

The Domain Name is therefore identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.

There has been no use of the Domain Name apart from a link to a page offering it for sale with other domain names containing third party trade marks which in these circumstances, is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use.

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registration or Use in Bad Faith

The Respondent has requested USD 100 for the Domain Name from the Complainant a sum which is substantially above likely out of pocket costs for registration of the Domain Name.

Accordingly the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

In any event, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention was to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the DESSANGE mark.

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 <dessange.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2018

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/