Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/ga-modefine-s-a-v-sparco-pl/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:55:26+00:00

Document:
Domain name – Domain name dispute resolution policy – U. S. Trade mark – U. S.
Domain name – International Trade mark – Italian Trade mark - Identical - Confusingly similar – Rights or legitimate interests – Bad faith registration – Bad faith use – Rule 12.
Complainant is owner of several international trade marks for ARMANI and AX ARMANI EXCHANGE in association with clothes, glasses, and perfumes. Respondent registered the domain name ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET.
Held: Name Not Transferred to Complainant.
It is clear that the domain name ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET is confusingly similar and identical to Complainant’s trademarks. There is little doubt that the domain name in question is fully capable of raising a likelihood of confusion with either trademark AX ARMANIEXCHANGE or ARMANI.
Complainant has not met its burden of proof regarding the circumstance that Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. It is not sufficient for Complainant to simply state that Respondent certainly knew that Complainant's trademarks enjoy notoriety and thus Respondent certainly registered the Domain Name in bad faith, in order to prove that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. No facts or evidence have been submitted to support Complainant’s allegations and although Respondent has not responded to the complaint, it is impossible to draw any inference from Respondent’s default. The Panel denies Complainant’s request to transfer the domain name ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET.
While Rule 12 gives the Panel discretion to request further statements or documents from either Party, it cannot be used in the present case. Rule 12 should be used sparingly and only when there is a contested, or controversial, or not entirely clear issue of fact or of law. In the present case, where basic elements have not been alleged at all, such considerations confirm that this Panel shall not use Rule 12.
CRS Technology Corp. v. CondeNet, Inc., File No. FA#0002000093547 (NAF Mar. 28, 2000).
Gordon Sumner v. Michael Urvan, D2000-0596 (WIPO).
Pomellato S.p.A v. Richard Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000).
Unione Calcio Sampdoria SpA v. Titan Hancocks, D 2000-0532 (WIPO).
On May 18, 2000, WIPO Center requested the Registrar, Network Solutions, pursuant to Paragraphs 2(a) and 4 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter the "Rules"): (1) to confirm that a copy of the Complaint had been sent to Network Solutions by the Complainant; (2) to confirm that the domain name at issue was registered with Network Solutions; (3) to confirm that the person identified as the respondent is the current registrant of the domain name; (4) to provide the full contact details (i.e., postal address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es) available in the registrar’s Whois database for the registrant of the disputed domain name, the technical contact, the administrative contact and the billing contact); (5) to confirm that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter the "Policy") applies to the domain name; and (6) to indicate the current status of the domain name.
On May 24, 2000, Network Solution replied that: (1) Network Solutions was not in receipt of the Complaint sent to them by the Complainant; (2) Network Solutions was the Registrar of the domain name registration; (3) Sparco P/L was the current registrant of the ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET domain name registration. (4) Registrant: Sparco P/L (ARMANIEXCHANGE3-DOM.NET). 20 Nuwarra Rd., Holsworthy, Sidney, NS 21700, Australia, Administrative Contact, Billling Contact Lucas Geoff (GL4685) sparco@hutchcity.com, Sparco P/L, 20 Nuwarra Rd., Holsworthy, Sidney, NSW 21700, Australia, 61294750166, (FAX) + 61294750166; (5) Network Solutions’ 4.0. Service Agreement was in effect; (6) the domain name registration ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET was in "Active" status.
With respect to all other requirements, the Panel finds that the payment was properly made and agrees with the WIPO Center’s assessment concerning the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements: the Complaint was properly notified to the Respondent in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules, on June 13, 2000, but since a response was not filed, on July 24, 2000 the WIPO Center communicated to the Respondent a Notification of Default. On August 2, 2000, the Parties were informed that in accordance with Paragraph 6 (f) of the Policy an Administrative Panel consisting of a single Member had been appointed. The sole Panelist had submitted on August 1, 2000 a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and the date scheduled for the issuance of the Panel’s decision was set for August 15, 2000.
The Complainant’s allegations are supported by copies of the trademark registrations and were verified by the Panel. The Respondent did not contest them.
The Panel finds that ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks ARMANI and AX ARMANI EXCHANGE.
However, the Panel needs not to distinguish the present case from the previous case D2000-0493 ("D493") where indeed it was already stated that "the Panel finds that simply stating the reasons is not normally sufficient to meet the Complainant’s burden of proof" (see at §6.2).
Furthermore the Panel cannot assume that Complainant's trademarks are indeed renown solely upon the Complainant’s word since it is necessary that the Complainant proffer evidence in such a sense (see Case D 2000-0532, Unione Calcio Sampdoria SpA v. Titan Hancocks) and therefore the Panel cannot base its finding on such a self-serving statement, even because the Complainant failed to offer any evidence that its trademarks are indeed registered in Australia, the place were the Respondent is.
On the contrary, in case D493 the Complaint had indicated facts and circumstances (for instance that "the Respondent has never been known by the domain name and since registration did not make use of the domain name" and evidence of renown such as a story on CNN), which could be easily verified and/or negated. As a matter of fact the Panel found that "facts and circumstances regarding the Respondent’s reasons and justifications for the domain name registration are usually known and easily available to the Respondent itself" and thus the Respondent's failure to reply deprived the Panel of the possibility to evaluate evidence and circumstances in a way different from that expressed by the Complainant.
In the present case, where no facts and no evidence have been submitted, the Panel finds it impossible to draw any inference from the Respondent’s default.
This principle cannot be held solely applicable to the Respondent who certainly bears the risk of the inferences drawn by the Panel from his/her default. It is applicable, mutatis mutandis to the Complainant who has ample time and guidance (see Paragraph 3 (b) (ix) of the Rules, Paragraph 4(b) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, hereinafter the "Policy", and §V of the Model Complaint prepared by the WIPO -which was used by the Complainant in drafting the present case Complaint ) to include in the Complaint all the circumstances required for the Panel to take a fair and legitimate decision.
The Panel finds that its view is not isolated (see Decision D2000-0596, STING.COM, Interim Order at §7: "although litigants and parties in arbitrations may have a right of reply under the rules of other forums, ICANN chose a different procedure for these proceedings that calls for only a Complaint and a Response. Among other things, this more truncated procedure allows for more rapid and cost effective resolution of domain name challenges. See CRS Technology Corp. v. CondeNet, Inc., File No. FA#0002000093547 (NAF Mar. 28, 2000). At the same time, ICANN provided the Panel with the flexibility to seek additional submissions if the Panel feels that it cannot rule on the record submitted…..). In the present case, where basic elements have not been alleged at all, such considerations confirm that this Panel shall not use Rule 12.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that although Respondent’s disputed domain name ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, the Complainant failed to show that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Uniform Rules, the Panel denies the request that the Registrar, Network Solutions, Inc, be required either to transfer to the Complainant or to cancel, the domain name "ARMANIEXCHANGE.NET".

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §6
 v. 
 §7
 v.