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

All Saints Retail Limited v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2018-2547

1. The Parties

The Complainant is All Saints Retail Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, UK.

The Respondent is Name Redacted.1

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allsaintssale.org> (the “Domain Name”) 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 November 7, 2018, naming the Respondent as GoDaddy.com, LLC. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied on November 8, 2018, confirming that the Domain Name is registered with it but that GoDaddy.com, LLC is not the registrant. The Registrar provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name. The Registrar also confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies to the Domain Name, that the Domain Name expires on March 20, 2019, that it will remain locked during this proceeding subject to expiry, and that the language of the registration agreement is English.

The Center invited the Complainant by email of November 14, 2018 to amend the Complaint to reflect the registrant information provided by the Registrar. The Complainant submitted an amended Complaint accordingly on November 16, 2018.

The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 19, 2018. On November 26, 2018, the Center received an email from a person indicating that the Domain Name had been registered using that person’s contact details without authorization. The Center replied on November 27, 2018, acknowledging receipt of this communication and stating that the matter raised would be addressed by the Panel. The Center also informed the Parties on the same date that a person had contacted it regarding that person’s identity in relation to this proceeding.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was December 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. The Center notified the parties on December 10, 2018, that it would proceed to Panel Appointment.

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 2018. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a fashion retailer. The business was founded in 1994 and has operated under the brand name “AllSaints” since then. It started as a wholesaler supplier of fashionwear to high-end retailers such as Harvey Nichols and Harrods. It now sells clothing, footwear and accessories in 232 stores in 27 countries including the UK, France, the United States of America, Canada, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan. It has about 3200 employees and a turnover in 2017 of over GBP 303 million.

The Complainant has operated a website at “www.allsaints.com” since 2009. Visits to this website totaled nearly 28 million in 2017. The Complainant also has hundreds of thousands of followers on major social media platforms.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS as well as various other marks containing these in the UK, the European Union and many other countries. These registrations include UK registration no. 00002307473 for ALL SAINTS registered on March 21, 2003 pursuant to an application on August 7, 2002, and UK registration no. 00003008651 for ALLSAINTS registered on July 3, 2015 pursuant to an application on June 5, 2013.

The Domain Name was registered on March 20, 2018, and is directed to a website that purports to sell products of the Complainant under the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS at heavily reduced prices.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has registered and unregistered rights in the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS. It submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks, since the addition of the descriptive word “sale” merely serves to reinforce a false connection with the Complainant.

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its marks and that the Respondent is not known by these marks. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the products advertised on the website at the Domain Name under the Complainant’s marks do not originate with the Complainant, and the Complainant has reason to suspect that they are not actually available for sale. The Complainant adds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS in view of its extensive Internet presence.

The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s website has been set up with the intention of creating a connection with the Complainant and to lure consumers to it with the promise of price reductions. The Complainant states that the goods purportedly offered on the Respondent’s website do not originate with the Complainant and suspects that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to obtain personal and financial information from those who seek to purchase goods on its website.

The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

As stated above, the Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel regards the Respondent as being the real registrant of the Domain Name rather than the person whose identity appears to have been misused by that registrant, and the Panel uses the term “Respondent” to refer to that registrant.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is convenient to consider each of these requirements in turn.

In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks. The addition of the descriptive and frequently used term “sale” and of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix does not provide any effective distinction between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s marks. The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s undisputed evidence that the goods purportedly offered on the Respondent’s website did not originate with the Complainant, if they exist at all.

It is also clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or a corresponding name and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.

The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name.

On the evidence, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the evidence that by using the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for some form of commercial gain, whether through the sale of counterfeit goods or the collection of personal and financial data, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source of the website and the products offered on it.

In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, this constitutes evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. There is no evidence displacing this presumption.

The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP is satisfied and it is appropriate to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

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 Domain Name <allsaintssale.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

For the purpose of properly executing this order, the Panel directs the Registrar’s attention to Annex 1 hereto that identifies the individual listed as registrant of the Domain Name in the formal record of registration, and orders that the Domain Name be transferred from that individual to the Complainant.

The Panel directs that Annex 1 shall not be published along with this decision.

Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: January 2, 2019

1 In light of the potential identity theft revealed by the correspondence, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the registrant according to the Registrar’s WhoIs database. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated that Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.

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/