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

Pierre Balmain S.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Daniel Phillips

Case No. D2015-0189

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pierre Balmain S.A. of Paris, France, represented by UGGC Avocats, China.

The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Daniel Phillips of Dallas, Texas, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <balmainarmy.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 5, 2015. On February 5, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 6, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 3, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 6, 2015.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 12, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2015. The Respondent filed an email with the Center on April 2, 2015, offering to transfer the disputed domain name. Subsequently, the Complainant requested a suspension of the proceedings on April 10, 2015. Hereupon, the Center suspended the procedure until May 10, 2015. As no settlement was reached, the Complainant requested the re-institution of the proceedings on May 10, 2015. The proceedings were re-instituted on May 11, 2015.

The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 2015. 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 is a French company active in the fashion and clothing sector. The Complainant is the holder of, inter alia, the following registered trademarks, which it uses in connection with its activities:

-logo, international trademark registered on April 25, 1980 with registration number 451759 in classes 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27 and 34;

-logo, international trademark registered on April 10, 2001 with registration number 758712 in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33 and 34.

The disputed domain name <balmainarmy.com> was created on December 12, 2014 and is registered by the Respondent. The disputed domain name resolves to a web page containing a picture of trees and a sentence mentioning the term “balmain”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant considers that the domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but has offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant in an email communication filed with the Center on April 2, 2015.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove:

(i) The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

However, the Panel notes that consent to transfer by the Respondent can provide a basis for an order for transfer without a need for consideration of the UDRP grounds. Taking into account the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.13 and The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, the Panel finds that when the Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent agrees to transfer, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order for transfer.

In this case, the Center received only one communication from the Respondent, in an email addressed to counsel of Complainant and stating that it would like to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

The Panel finds that it undoubtedly demonstrates the Respondent’s consent to transfer the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, the fact that no settlement agreement could be executed within the suspension period does not affect the Respondent’s consent to the transfer.

Accordingly, the Panel immediately orders the transfer of the disputed domain name.

7. 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 name <balmainarmy.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: May 27, 2015

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/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/