About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lancel International SA v. linda mo, lancel share

Case No. D2013-1187

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lancel International SA of Villars-Sur-Glâne, Switzerland, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is linda mo, lancel share of Guangzhou, China and Paris, France.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <achatlancel.com>, <achatslancel.com>, <frlancel.com>, <lancel-christmas.com>, <lancel-paschere.com>, <lancelpromotion.com>, <parislancel.com>, <saclancel-mall.com>, <sac-lancel2012.com>, <saclancel2013pascher.com>, <sacs-soldeslancel.com>, <solde-saclancel.com>, <soldeslancelfrpascher.com>, <soldeslancel-mall.com>, <soldeslancelpascher2013.com>, <soldes-saclancel.com>, <soldessaclancel2013.com> and <ventesprivees-lancel.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2013. On July 3, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 4, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 11, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 31, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 1, 2013.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 2013. 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, its affiliated companies and its predecessors-in-title have operated under the trademark LANCEL for more than 100 years. The trademark LANCEL has become a prestigious brand for luxury leather goods including, most notably, bags. The Complainant operates more than 60 boutiques in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. All genuine LANCEL trademarked goods are distributed exclusively through a worldwide network of boutiques and authorized retailers. The Complainant operates an extensive website at “www.lancel.com”, featuring information about the history of the Complainant’s operations and its current products and activities. The website is available in French, English, Chinese, Japanese and Russian.

The Complainant owns a large number of trademark registrations worldwide for the trademark LANCEL, dating from at least as early as 1946.

The disputed domain names were all registered between July 9, 2012 and March 12, 2013. They currently either: (i) resolve to websites offering for sale products that the Complainant believes are counterfeit and/or which directly compete with those of the Complainant; (ii) redirect to one of the websites to which some of the disputed domain names resolve; or (iii) appear not to be in active use.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the LANCEL trademark because: (i) they fully incorporate the LANCEL trademark, and merely add one or more of the descriptive French words “solde(s)” (sales), “achat” (purchase), “sac” (bag), “pas cher(e)” (cheap), “ventes privees”, (private sales), and/or the descriptive English characters or words “fr” (short for France), “Paris”, “2012”, “2013”, “Christmas”, “promotion”, and “mall”; (ii) the addition of hyphens does not render the disputed domain names less confusing; and (iii) they reference a specific product sold by the Complainant in the Complainant’s business, namely the selling of “sacs” or “bags”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because: (i) the Respondent, who is known as “linda mo” and who on occasion holds herself out under the false moniker “lancel share” has never been commonly known by the LANCEL trademark nor any variations thereof, and has never used any trademark or service marks similar to the disputed domain names by which they may have come to be known, other than the infringing use noted herein; (ii) the Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain names, and is not making a protected noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names; (iii) in the case of the disputed domain names <sac-lancel2012.com>, <lancelpaschere.com>, <sacs-soldeslancel.com>, <achatslancel.com> and <soldessaclancel2013.com>, the Respondent is using those domain names to offer for sale counterfeit products and/or products that compete directly with those offered by the Complainant; (iv) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name <solde-saclancel.com> to redirect to <sacs-soldeslancel.com>; <achatlancel.com> to redirect to <achatslancel.com>; <soldes-saclancel.com> to redirect to <pascherlancel2013.com>; and <soldeslancelmall.com> to redirect to <achatslancel.com>, all four of which are being used to offer for sale counterfeit products and/or products that compete directly with those offered by the Complainant; (v) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names <frlancel.com>, <parislancel.com> and <saclancelmall.com> to passively hold those domain names containing the LANCEL trademark; (vi) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names <lancel-christmas.com>, <lancelpromotion.com>, <ventesprivees-lancel.com>, <saclancel2013pascher.com>, <soldeslancelpascher2013.com> and <soldeslancelfrpascher.com> to publish websites offering pay-per-click advertisements linking to third-party businesses; and (vii) the Complainant has not granted the Respondent any license, permission or authorization by which the Respondent could own or use any domain name registrations which are confusingly similar to the LANCEL marks.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith because: (i) the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with either actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the LANCEL trademark by virtue of the Complainant’s prior registrations of that trademark with the trademark offices of China where the Respondent is located, and of the European Union, where the Respondent’s websites are targeted; (ii) the disputed domain names have been used to resolve to websites offering for sale products of the Complainant’s competitors and/or counterfeit “knock offs” of the Complainant’s own products, or to direct Internet users to competing goods and services of others; (iii) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to passively hold domain names containing the LANCEL trademark which has a strong reputation worldwide and the Respondent has not provided any evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain names; (iv) by using the disputed domain names to resolve to websites offering products in competition with those offered under the Complainant’s LANCEL trademark, the Respondent is disrupting the Complainant’s business; (v) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the LANCEL trademark; and (vi) if the Respondent had conducted even a preliminary trademark search it would have found the Complainant’s various trademark registrations for the LANCEL trademark, the websites associated with them, and numerous additional references in commerce, on the Internet and in publications evidencing the Complainant’s use of the LANCEL trademark in connection with the Complainant’s goods and services.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Procedural Issue – Multiple Domain Names

The WhoIs data and the contact information provided by the Registrar show that the disputed domain names are registered in the name of either “linda mo” or “lancel share”. In respect of each disputed domain name, the email address for the Administrative contact and the Technical contact is the same. The fact that the disputed domain names share a common Registrar and common Administrative contact and Technical contact email addresses is sufficient, in the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, to satisfy the Panel that the holder of each of the disputed domain names is one and the same entity. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint is properly brought against each of the disputed domain names pursuant to rule 3(c) of the Rules.

7. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names incorporate the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark LANCEL, with the addition of various combinations of descriptive French words “solde(s)” (sales), “achat” (purchase), “sac” (bag), “pas cher(e)” (cheap), “ventes privees”, (private sales), and/or the descriptive English characters or words “fr” (short for France), “Paris”, “2012”, “2013”, “Christmas”, “promotion”, and “mall”. The dominant element of each of the disputed domain names is the Complainant’s trademark LANCEL. The Panel finds that the addition of the descriptive words and/or characters does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s trademark. This is especially so given that most of the additional words relate, in some form or another, to the Complainant’s particular business of selling handbags. Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its LANCEL trademark. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that some of the disputed domain names have been used to resolve to websites offering goods that purport to be the Complainant’s goods but most likely are counterfeits of the Complainant’s goods, and that the other disputed domain names appear not to be in active use. The Respondent has provided no evidence establishing that it has trademark or other rights to the string “lancel”, which is the dominant and distinctive component of the disputed domain names. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain names were registered many decades after the Complainant first registered its LANCEL trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the extent of use of its LANCEL trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain names were registered, the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant’s LANCEL trademark, and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the disputed domain names not in active use is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that there is no reasonably conceivable legitimate use to which the Respondent could put those disputed domain names. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the other disputed domain names indicates that the Respondent has used those disputed domain names to attract, or to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to various websites by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the affiliation of those websites. For all these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that each of the disputed domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

8. 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 names <achatlancel.com>, <achatslancel.com>, <frlancel.com>, <lancel-christmas.com>, <lancel-paschere.com>, <lancelpromotion.com>, <parislancel.com>, <saclancel-mall.com>, <sac-lancel2012.com>, <saclancel2013pascher.com>, <sacs-soldeslancel.com>, <solde-saclancel.com>, <soldeslancelfrpascher.com>, <soldeslancel-mall.com>, <soldeslancelpascher2013.com>, <soldes-saclancel.com>, <soldessaclancel2013.com> and <ventesprivees-lancel.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: August 26, 2013

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/