Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1412
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:51:52+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio of Mendrisio, Switzerland, represented by Studio Rapisardi S.A., Italy.
Respondent is Lin jinqing of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
The disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2012. On July 11, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 12, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July 19, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both the Chinese and English languages regarding the language of proceedings. On July 20, 2012, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of proceedings. Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 27, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 16, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 17, 2012.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 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. The decision due date has been subsequently extended by the Panel.
Complainant, Giorgio Armani S.p.A., is a company incorporated in Mendrisio, Switzerland. Giorgio Armani is a famous designer and producer of different kinds of goods and services, such as watches. Complainant is the owner of several ARMANI and EMPORIO ARMANI trademarks (the “ARMANI Marks”) registered worldwide, including registrations in Europe, United States of America, Canada and many Madrid international trademark registrations (registered since 1986, Annex C to the Complaint).
Respondent is Lin jinqing of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. The disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> was registered by Respondent on June 28, 2011 long after the ARMANI Marks became internationally famous (Annex A to the Complaint).
(a) Complainant owns several worldwide known ARMANI and EMPORIO ARMANI trademarks.
Said ARMANI Marks are registered and have been constantly used for several years, and registrations cover the European Union, United States, Canada, and many other countries.
The ARMANI Marks are well-known all over the world.
The disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> incorporates entirely Complainant’s ARMANI Marks.
The mere inversion of the words “Emporio” and “Armani” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademarks.
(b) The lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Respondent has no legitimate interest in using the words “Armani” and / or “Emporio Armani” in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the ARMANI Marks in a domain name or in any other manner.
Respondent has not acquired any legitimate rights whatsoever in the disputed domain name or any name corresponding to the disputed domain name.
Respondent is making a commercial use of the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers.
Through the website at the disputed domain name, Respondent offers and puts on sale a wide range of non original watches distinguished by the trademarks EMPORIO ARMANI, and puts the sign Emporio Armani at the top of the relevant homepage.
Considering that Complainant has its own official website <emporioarmani.com>, it is very likely that the consumers will be misled by the adverse website and will be led to believe that it is one of the official websites authorized by Complainant.
(c) The bad faith of Respondent in the registration of the disputed domain name is found.
The worldwide fame of the ARMANI Marks leaves no question of Respondent’s awareness of those at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
Through the website at the disputed domain name it is possible to buy a wide range of not original products distinguished by Complainant’s ARMANI Marks.
Respondent, warned by Complainant on the illegality of his domain name registration and use, has never check complaint when requested to transfer the disputed domain name (Annexes H and I to the Compliant) and maintained the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, despite Complainant’s objection.
(a) Complainant, due to its nationality and the place of its registered office, has no familiarity with the Chinese language.
(b) Respondent has chosen to register a domain name with the unsponsored gTLD “.com”, typically not representing a specific community, and regulated by the policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, ruled by the English language.
(c) The language used in the pages to which the disputed domain name resolves is English.
(d) These circumstances demonstrate that Respondent’s has for sure a great familiarity with the English language.
“[I]n certain situations, where Respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint (or having been given a fair chance to object has not done so), and Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, the WIPO Center as a provider may accept the language of the complaint, even if it is different from the language of the registration agreement”. (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 4.3; see also L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA, WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).
The Panel has taken into consideration the fact that Complainant is a company from Switzerland, and Complainant will be spared the burden of dealing with Chinese as the language of the proceeding. The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the website at the disputed domain name includes Latin characters “Armani” and “Emporio” (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).
On the record, Respondent appears to be a Chinese individual and is thus presumably not a native English speaker, but the Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> is registered in Latin characters, rather than Chinese script; (b) The content on the website at the disputed domain name is in English. Respondent is apparently doing business in English through this website (Annex F to the Complaint); (c) the website appears to have been directed to users worldwide (particularly English speakers) rather than Chinese speakers; (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the proceedings in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding; and (e) the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.
Considering the above circumstances, the Panel finds the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for this case. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding, and the decision will be rendered in English.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in several ARMANI and EMPORIO ARMANI trademarks acquired through registration. The ARMANI Marks have been registered worldwide including registrations in Europe, United States, Canada and many Madrid international trademark registrations.
The disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> comprises the ARMANI and EMPORIO ARMANI Marks in their entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark ARMANI by the addition of the word “Emporio” and the hyphen “-” to connect the two words and only differs from Complainant’s trademark EMPORIO ARMANI by the inversion of the words “Emporio” and “Armani” and the addition of the hyphen “-” to connect the two words. This does not eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name.
The mere inversion of the words “Emporio” and “Armani” and the addition of the hyphen “-” to connect the two words fail to distinguish the confusing similarity between the EMPORIO ARMANI trademarks and the disputed domain name. Consumers who visit “www.armani-emporio.com” are likely to be confused and may falsely believe that “www.armani-emporio.com” is operated by Complainant for selling Armani and Emporio Armani-branded products. (see ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. A.B.B Transmission Engineering Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1466; Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba dba Toshiba Corporation v. WUFACAI, WIPO Case No. D2006-0768).
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ARMANI and EMPORIO ARMANI trademarks.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai, WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1 and cases cited therein).
Complainant has rights in the ARMANI Marks globally for several years (since 1986, Annex C to the Complaint) which long precedes Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (2011).
According to the Complaint, Complainant is one of the world’s leading producer of watches and its ARMANI marks have become world-wide famous. Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of ARMANI branded products. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> in 2011, long after the ARMANI Marks became internationally famous. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARMANI Marks.
(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, according to the information provided by Complainant, Respondent was in actuality advertising, offering and selling purported ARMANI products on the website at <armani-emporio.com> (Annex F to the Complaint). The Panel also notes, as further discussed under the third element, that the website at the disputed domain name does not accurately and prominently disclose Respondent’s relationship with Complainant.
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the ARMANI Marks with regard to its products. Complainant has registered its ARMANI Marks internationally, including registrations in Europe, United States, Canada and many Madrid international trademark registrations (Annex C to the Complaint). Moreover, the website advertises for sale various purported Complainant’s products. Respondent would not have advertised products purporting to be Complainant’s products on the website if he was unaware of Complainant’s ARMANI Marks’ reputation. In the other words, it is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark right at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the ARMANI trademarks are not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to formally respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. (see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787). Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant’s ARMANI branded products.
Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that by using a confusingly similar disputed domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites” offering Complainant’s ARMANI branded products and services without authorization. Complainant claimed that Respondent is doing a commercial use of the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark with intent for “commercial gain” to misleadingly divert consumers.
Given the widespread reputation of the ARMANI trademarks (as well as the content on Respondent’s website - mentioned above), the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name is resolved (Annex F to the Compliant). In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the ARMANI Marks. Noting also that apparently no clarification as to Respondent’s relationship to Complainant is made on the website at the disputed domain name, potential partners and end users are led to believe that the website at the disputed domain name <armani-emporio.com> is either Complainant’s site or the site of official authorized partners of Complainant, which it is not. Moreover, Respondent has not responded formally to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was used by Respondent in bad faith.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website on to which the disputed domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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 <armani-emporio.com> be transferred to Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.