Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1519
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:17:40+00:00

Document:
Respondent is chen xiuyan of Quanzhou, Fujian, China.
The disputed domain name <swarovskiswitzerland.com> is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 27, 2012. On July 27, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 1, 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 August 2, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both the Chinese and English languages regarding the language of proceedings. On August 3, 2012, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of proceeding. 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 August 8, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 28, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 29, 2012.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 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.
Complainant, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft, is a company incorpated in Triesen, Liechtenstein. Swarovski is the world’s leading producer of cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones with production facilities in 18 countries, distribution to 42 countries and a presence in more than 120 countries.
Complainant has exclusive rights in several SWAROVSKI trademarks (hereafter “SWAROVSKI Marks”). Complainant is the exclusive owner of famous and well-known registered SWAROVSKI trademarks globally (see Annex B to the Complaint), including China (since 1987), Germany and Switzerland (CTM registration since 2005) (See Annex C to the Complaint). It also owns the domain names <swarovski.com> (since January 11, 1996) and <swarovski.net> (since April 16, 1998) (see Annexes J and K to the Complaint).
Respondent is chen xiuyan of Quanzhou, Fujian, China. The disputed domain name <swarovskiswitzerland.com> was registered by Respondent on April 19, 2012, long after SWAROVSKI Marks became internationally famous (Annex A to the Complaint).
Complainant has registered the SWAROVSKI Marks globally (an excerpt of a selection of the registrations is attached as Annex B to the Complaint), including China (since 1987), Germany and Switzerland (CTM registration since 2005) (See Annex C to the Complaint).
In 2011, Complainant’s products were sold in 1218 of its own boutiques and through 1000 partner-operated boutiques worldwide and its approximate worldwide revenue in 2011 was EUR 2.87 billion.
SWAROVSKI Marks have become famous and well-known in China, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. (Annexes D-G to the Complaint).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 19, 2012.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent’s website (the “Infringing Website”) is an official Complainant’s website and/or Respondent is affiliated with or authorised to sell products by Complainant.
Respondent is operating an online shop that offers various purported Swarovski products for sale, such as “Swarovski Necklaces”, “Swarovski Rings”, “Swarovski Bracelets”, “Swarovski Earrings”, “Swarovski Bangle”, “Swarovski Sets” and more (Annex L to the Complaint).
The content on the Infringing Website is in German and English. Respondent has listed “Swarovski Crystal” as the manufacturer of some of the products. This is clearly intended to give consumers the impression of affiliation with or authorisation by Swarovski and the Respondent is creating the impression that the Infringing Website is an official Swarovski website and the Respondent is an authorized seller of Swarovski products.
Respondent does not at any point identify itself as being independent from Complainant. The disputed domain name is a blatant infringement of the SWAROVSKI Marks and no bona fide use is being made of the disputed domain name. Respondent is trying to pass itself off as Swarovski and is exploiting the goodwill associated with the SWAROVSKI Marks in order to obtain commercial gain.
Previous UDRP panels have recognised that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or mark.
Respondent has used the SWAROVSKI Marks in the disputed domain name so as to cause confusion among Internet users between the disputed domain name and Swarovski approved websites.
Misdirecting Internet users to the disputed domain name takes advantage of the behaviour pattern identified in Crichton for commercial gain.
This type of initial interest confusion or diversion of traffic is illegal because it wrongfully capitalises on the Complainant’s goodwill in the SWAROVSKI Marks to divert Internet traffic to the Infringing Website..
The addition of the term “switzerland” as a suffix to the SWAROVSKI Marks does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark, and does not differentiate the disputed domain name enough to prevent confusion among consumers.
Numerous UDRP panels have found that the addition of a geographical name or indicator to a trademark does not serve to differentiate the domain name from a complainant.
Previous UDRP Panels have also held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety.
Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Swarovski and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the SWAROVSKI Marks in a domain name or in any other manner.
Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSK Marks or the name “Swarovski”.
The disputed domain name is being used to advertise purported Swarovski products and the disputed domain name misdirects Internet traffic to the Infringing Website. Such a use is contrary to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate interest.
Respondent’s misappropriation of the disputed domain name was no accident. Respondent’s use of the SWAROVSKI Marks is clearly for the purpose of misleading consumers into believing that the Respondent and the Infringing Website are associated with or approved by Swarovski.
Previous UDRP panels have held that when a respondent chooses to incorporate a well-known trademark (like the SWAROVSKI Marks) into a domain name without the authorisation of the trademark holder, it cannot be considered a bona fide offering.
Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because it was registered with the knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks, as it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Swarovski’s rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks.
The Infringing Website advertises for sale various purported Swarovski products. Registration of a famous mark, like the SWAROVSKI Marks, as a domain name by an entity that has no legitimate relationship with the mark is itself sufficient to demonstrate bad faith.
Previous UDRP panels have found that coupling a descriptive word with a complainant’s mark or even a word similar to a complainant’s mark in a domain name constitutes bad faith on the part of the respondent.
Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s trademarks are well known in Germany, Switzerland, China and worldwide, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of Complainant.
Many UDRP panels have held that a respondent’s very method of infringement, i.e., by using the exact SWAROVSKI Marks to lure consumers to its website demonstrates bad faith use under the Policy.
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts Internet users to the Infringing Website because of its purported affiliation with Swarovski.
Respondent is attempting to attract consumers for commercial gain to the disputed domain name by creating confusion among consumers by utilising the SWAROVSKI Marks. Respondent, without valid consent, utilises the SWAROVKI Marks throughout the Infringing Website and offers products identical to or similar to Swarovski products for sale.
The Panel has taken into consideration the fact that Complainant is a company from Liechtenstein, 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 websites at the disputed domain name includes Latin characters “Swarovski” and English word “switzerland” (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 that 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 <swarovskiswitzerland.com> is registered in Latin characters and particularly in English language, rather than Chinese script; (b) The content on the Infringing Website is in English and German. While some of the tabs and other information is provided in German, the product categories and many of the product descriptions are provided in English. Respondent is apparently doing business in English through this website (Annex L 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; (e) the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SWAROVSKI Marks acquired through registration. The SWAROVSKI Marks have been registered worldwide including in China, Germany and Switzerland, and Complainant has a widespread reputation in producing cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones.
The disputed domain name <swarovskiswitzerland.com> comprises the SWAROVSKI Mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s trademark by the addition of the final word “switzerland” to the mark SWAROVSKI. This does not seem to eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.
Mere addition of the descriptive term “switzerland” as a suffix to Complainant’s mark fails to distinguish. By contrast, it may increase the likelihood of confusion. Consumers who visit <swarovskiswitzerland.com> are likely to be confused and may falsely believe that <swarovskiswitzerland.com> is operated by Complainant for selling Swarovski-branded products in Switzerland (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; see also Jurlique International Pty Ltd v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / troy ho, WIPO Case No. D2011-1237).
Thus, the Panel finds that the addition of the geographical term “switzerland” is not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the SWAROVSKI Marks.
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 the respondent to rebut the complainant’s contentions. If the 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 SWAROVSKI Marks globally (international registration - see Annex B to the Complaint), including the SWAROVSKI Mark registration in China since 1987 – (see Annex C to the Complaint) which long precedes Respondent’s registrations of the disputed domain name (April 19, 2012).
According to Complaint, Complainant is the world’s leading producer of cut crystal, genuine gemstones and created stones with production facilities in 18 countries, distribution to 42 countries and a presence in more than 120 countries. In 2011, Complainant’s products were sold in 1218 of its own boutiques and through 1000 partner-operated boutiques worldwide. Complainant’s approximate worldwide revenue in 2011 was EUR 2.87 billion.
(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 <swarovskiswitzerland.com> on April 19, 2012, long after the SWAROVSKI mark became internationally famous. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAROVSKI Mark.
(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 Swarovski products at <swarovskiswitzerland.com> (Annex L to the Complaint).
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or location or of a product.
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the SWAROVSKI Mark with regard to its products. Complainant has registered its SWAROVSKI Marks internationally, including registration in China (since 1987). Moreover, the Infringing Website advertises for sale various purported Swarovski products. Respondent would not have advertised products purporting to be Swarovski products on the Infringing Website if he was unaware of Swarovski’s 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 SWAROVSKI Mark 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 the 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 Swarovski 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 SWAROVSKI branded products and services without authorization. Complainant claimed that Respondent is attempting to attract consumers for “commercial gain” to the disputed domain name by creating confusion among consumers by utilising the SWAROVSKI Marks.
Given the widespread reputation of the SWAROVSKI Mark (as well as the content on Respondent homepage - 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 (see Annexes J and L to the Complaint). In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the SWAROVSKI Mark. Noting also that apparently no clarification as to Respondent’s relationship to Complainant is made on the homepage of the disputed domain name, potential partners and end users are led to believe that the website at <swarovskiswitzerland.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 trademark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark 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 Infringing Website on to which the disputed domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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 name at <swarovskiswitzerland.com> be transferred to Complainant.

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