Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-0988
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:52:33+00:00

Document:
The Respondents are known only by their first names - Priscilla, Ranesha, Victor and Angel of Fujian, the People’s Republic of China; Jane, Selima, John, Angela, Carl, Darren, Angela, Susanna, Jonathan, Sally, Michelle, Pamela, Olivier and Matthew of United States of America; and Oiu of Egypt.
The disputed domain names <buylacostes.com>, <cheaperlacoste.com>, <goodlacoste.com>, <lacoste-sales.com>, <lacosteselling.com>, <lacosteshoesale.com>, <lacosteshoeshop.com>, <lacosteshoesshop.com>, <lacosteshoestore.com>, <lacosteshow.com>, <lacostessale.com>, <lacosteswear.com>, <lacostezone.com>, <selllacoste.com>, <speciallacoste.com>, <thelacostestore.com>, <weblacoste.com>, <youlacoste.com> and <yourlacoste.com> (“Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 15, 2010. On June 17, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On June 18, 2010, Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that each Respondent is listed as the registrant of the corresponding Disputed Domain Name and providing the contact details. On June 21, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of proceedings. On the same day, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of proceedings. The Respondents did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date. The Complainant submitted an unsolicited amendment to the Complaint on June 21, 2010. 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 28, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 18, 2010. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on July 19, 2010.
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 2010. 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 Complainant is one of the world’s leading companies in clothing and fashion accessory design and manufacture. The Complainant’s LACOSTE trademark was first used in 1933 on sportswear. The product line under the LACOSTE trademark has since expanded to cover other products which are listed on the Complainant’s website at “www.lacoste.com”.
The Complainant’s website averages over 30,000 visitors per day. The Complainant operates over 1,100 boutiques worldwide. The Complainant’s products are also offered through numerous retail outlets in 114 countries. Global wholesale turnover of products under the LACOSTE trademark was over Euro1.4 billion in 2009.
The Complainant also maintains 32 country-specific websites incorporating the LACOSTE trademark (e.g., “www.lacoste.com/uk”). The LACOST trademark has also been recognized as a well-known mark by prior panels (see Lacoste Alligator S.A. v. Xinpeng Liu, WIPO Case No. D2009-0629; Lacoste Alligator S.A. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2005-0673; Lacoste Alligator S.A. v. Major Shopping Network Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-1599).
All Disputed Domain Names were registered many years after the trademark registrations for the LACOSTE trademark. All the Disputed Domain Names resolved to websites offering shoes under the LACOSTE trademark for sale online (At the time of writing this decision, none of the Disputed Domain Names resolved to any websites except <specialllacoste.com>, <youlacoste.com> and <lacosteshoesale.com> which resolved to the websites exhibited in the Complaint).
The Complainant received delivery of shoes which the Complainant purchased online from the websites resolved from <buylacostes.com> and <weblacoste.com>. Having examined these shoes, the Complainant believes that these are counterfeits.
3) The Respondents registered and are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. The Respondents are improperly commercially exploiting the Disputed Domain Names and the well-known LACOSTE trademark for their own gain. The shoes offered by the Respondents on the websites resolved from the Disputed Domain Names are counterfeit. The Respondents are profiting from the consumer confusion resulting from their misappropriation of the LACOSTE trademark. The Respondents use false contact information when registering the Disputed Domain Names.
(1). The Disputed Domain Names are all registered under fictitious details.
(5). The same photographs of are found on some of the websites resolved from the Disputed Domain Names.
(5). It serves no discernible purpose or benefit to adhere to the default language of the registration agreement in this case.
(3). The Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations for LACOSTE establish the Complainant’s trademark rights for purposes of this proceeding.
It is long established by past panel decisions that a domain name incorporating a trademark in its entirety with the addition of generic and non-distinctive prefixes and/or suffixes is confusingly similar to the trademark (e.g., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com, WIPO Case No. D2002-0615; Birkenstock Orthopädie GmbH & Co. KG v. Chen Yanbing, WIPO Case No. D2010-0746; Chanel Inc. v. Dong Jiancai, WIPO Case No. D2010-0144).
The prefixes and suffixes incorporated in the Disputed Domain Names are descriptive words which are not distinctive. Used in conjunction with a well-known mark like the LACOSTE trademark further aggravates the likelihood of confusion (see Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Uvelov, WIPO Case No. D2002-0521). Therefore, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LACOSTE trademark. The Panel also agrees that the addition of the letter “s” in <lacostessale.com>,<buylacostes.com> and <lacosteswear.com> does not remove any such confusing similarity (see Halcyon Yarn, Inc. v. Chan, WIPO Case No. D2004-0336; Medtronic, Inc. v. gotdomains4sale.com, WIPO Case No. D2001-1033). The first limb of paragraph 4(a) is accordingly satisfied for all the Disputed Domain Names.
The consensus developed by past panels is that a complainant only needs to show a prima facie case that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.
The Complainant, being the trademark owner of the LACOSTE trademark, has confirmed that it did not grant the Respondents any rights to register or use the Disputed Domain Names.
The adoption of the LACOSTE trademark on the Respondents’ websites cannot be mere coincidence. The Respondents are also not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondents also offer to sell shoes under the LACOSTE trademark on the websites resolved from the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondents must have been well aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark rights and the Respondents must have consciously and deliberately adopted the same in the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel has noted the Complainant’s belief that the shoes offered for sale on the websites to be counterfeit. The Respondents have neither sought to counter nor sought to advance any explanation or supporting evidence that they are engaging in legitimate reselling of the Complainant’s genuine branded products only.
In the circumstances, a prima facie case that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names is established. Since no Response was filed, the prima facie is not rebutted and results in the second limb of paragraph 4(a) being upheld.
Based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel accepts that the LACOSTE trademark is well-known.
The Panel has already found above that the Respondents must have had prior knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights. The selection of the Disputed Domain Names by the Respondents and use of the LACOSTE trademark on the Respondents’ websites clearly exhibits a deliberate intent to associate with the LACOSTE trademark. The use of the Disputed Domain Names in such a manner indicate opportunistic bad faith registration and use which takes unfair advantage of the reputation in the Complainant’s trademarks (Birkenstock Orthopädie GmbH & Co. KG v. Chen Yanbing, supra; Privatbrauerei Eichbaum GmbH & Co. KG v. Hamit Karaca, WIPO Case No. D2010-0258; Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Gray West International, WIPO Case No. D2000-1219).
The Respondents’ websites offer to sell products which can only be targeted at commercial gain. The Panel determines that bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) is also supported on the facts.
Further, the Complainant has alleged these products to be counterfeits. Faced with such serious allegations, the Respondents have chosen to remain silent. Such nonchalance is not a reasonable reaction from an honest trader accused of counterfeiting and can only result in an adverse inference that the Complainant’s allegations are founded and correct. This Panel does not hesitate to make such inference in the circumstances and finding the “paradigmatic bad faith” described in Wellquest International, Inc. v. Nicholas Clark, WIPO Case No. D2005-0552, namely, for the selling counterfeit goods through websites resolved from the Disputed Domain Names.
In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the third limb of paragraph 4(a) is also established.
For all 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, <buylacostes.com>, <cheaperlacoste.com>, <goodlacoste.com>, <lacoste-sales.com>, <lacosteselling.com>, <lacosteshoesale.com>, <lacosteshoeshop.com>, <lacosteshoesshop.com>, <lacosteshoestore.com>, <lacosteshow.com>, <lacostessale.com>, <lacosteswear.com>, <lacostezone.com>, <selllacoste.com>, <speciallacoste.com>, <thelacostestore.com>, <weblacoste.com>, <youlacoste.com> and <yourlacoste.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

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