WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Golden Goose S.P.A. v. 梁光普（Liang Guangpu）

Case No. D2019-2215

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Golden Goose S.P.A., Italy, represented by Maria de Vietro, Italy.

The Respondent is 梁光普（Liang Guangpu）, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <goldengooseusa.com> is registered with DNSPod, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 12, 2019. On September 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2019, 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 October 3, 2019, 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 in English on October 18, 2019.

On October 3, 2019, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On October 3, 2019, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent, in English and Chinese, of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 14, 2019.

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 2019. 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, Golden Goose S.P.A., is an Italian footwear, clothing and accessories company, which owns the brands Golden Goose, Golden Goose Deluxe Brand, GGDB, GGDB/SSTAR. It has used these brands in relation to footwear, clothing and accessories, from at least 2007.

The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations containing “Golden Goose”:

- GOLDEN GOOSE, Italian trademark No. 0001657474 registered on November 24, 2015, in classes 18, 25 and 35;

- GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND, Italian trademark No. 0001608972 registered on July 10, 2014, in classes 9 and 35;

- GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND, International trademark No. 881244 registered on December 12, 2005, in classes 3, 14, 18 and 25;

- GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND and Device, International trademark No. 1432470 registered on June 19, 2018, in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35;

- GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND and Device, Italian trademark No. 2017000150261 registered on October 12, 2018, in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35.

It also owns several trademark registrations for GGDB, the acronym for GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND.

The Complainant operates a website advertising its products at “www.goldengoose.com”.

The disputed domain name <goldengooseusa.com> was registered on August 2, 2018. It resolves to a website advertising shoes for sale, which are identical and / or similar to those of the Complainant’s products and bear the Complainant’s registered trademarks. These shoes are offered at significantly lower prices than their retail value, with the appearance of being discounted from their original value.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or similar to its trademarks GOLDEN GOOSE and GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND. It fully incorporates GOLDEN GOOSE and it incorporates the distinctive and dominant elements of GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND. The Complainant argues that the addition of the letters “us[a]” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from its trademarks.

Second, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for the following reasons. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer products for sale which are identical and / or similar to the Complainant’s products, and bear the Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to its own website for commercial gain, by creating a misleading resemblance to the Complainant in terms of source, sponsorship, affiliation and origin of the products. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, nor has any collaboration or agency relationship with the Respondent.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the following reasons. The GOLDEN GOOSE brand enjoys international notoriety. The Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark due to the fact that it not only registered the disputed domain name reproducing its trademark but also advertises identical products to the Complainant on its website, in the same way as on the Complainant’s website, and bearing the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to create confusion with the Complainant and divert Internet traffic to its site. The incorporation of the Complainant’s well-known brand in combination with the letters “us[a]” in the disputed domain name leads Internet users to believe that the associated website is the Complainant’s official website or affiliated with the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Language of the Proceeding

In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules:

“[…] the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”

Therefore, the default language of the proceeding shall be Chinese.

However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, for the main reason that the content of the website connected to the disputed domain name is entirely in English. Specifically, the advertising, description and marketing of the shoes is all in English, and the sale prices are in the United States of America dollars.

The Respondent was notified of each step of the proceedings in both Chinese and English, and did not respond regarding the choice of language, or submit a formal response. Given this, there is no reason to request the Complainant to resubmit the Complaint in Chinese. In addition, as the Complainant points out, the entire website linked to the disputed domain name is in English, so it may be assumed that the Respondent understands English. Accordingly, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be in English and shall proceed with a decision in English.

6.2 Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has provided evidence of trademark registrations for GOLDEN GOOSE and GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND, among others. Therefore, it has shown it has rights in the trademarks.

The test for whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks is fairly straightforward and a domain name incorporating the entirety or dominant feature of the relevant mark will normally satisfy the threshold (Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies, WIPO Case No. D2004-0962). It is standard practice to disregard the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) (see, e.g., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Domain Admin/xcite, WIPO Case No. DCC2007-0003).

In this case, the disputed domain name entirely contains the Complainant’s trademark GOLDEN GOOSE and contains the dominant element of the Complainant’s trademark GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND, where the words “deluxe brand” are mainly descriptive. The addition of the term “usa” does not detract from the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks, and appears to be a geographic indicator for the United States of America (“USA”).

Therefore, the first requirement of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second element, a complainant must demonstrate that the respondent should be deemed as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant submits it has no affiliation with the Respondent and has never authorized it to register the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, where the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s distinctive trademark as its dominant element, it is hard to conceive of any plausible rights or legitimate interests that the Respondent could have in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to advertise shoes for sale, which bear a striking resemblance to the Complainant’s products, and which are sold under the Complainant’s brand names, bearing the Complainant’s trademarks. Considering the nature of the disputed domain name, this is not legitimate or fair use of a domain name within the meaning of the Policy. Instead, it is an attempt to mislead consumers regarding the authenticity of the products advertised and to give the false impression of an affiliation with the Complainant.

Further, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Therefore, the second requirement of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant must prove that a disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

In this regard, section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”.

The disputed domain name entirely contains the Complainant’s trademark plus the apparent geographical designation “usa”, and was registered several years after the dates of the Complainant’s trademark registrations. The Complainant’s evidence and online searches show that the GOLDEN GOOSE trademark contains a significant level of fame and goodwill. Moreover, this extends to mainland China, where there are several physical Golden Goose stores, and where the Respondent is located. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Registrant knew of the Complainant’s rights and proceeded to register the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent then proceeded to use the disputed domain name to establish a website using the Complainant’s trademarks GOLDEN GOOSE, GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND and GGDB, among others, to advertise shoes for sale which are highly similar to the Complainant’s products. Moreover, the fact that they are advertised at extremely low prices compared to their retail value suggests they may be counterfeit goods. There is a real risk that Internet users looking for the official website of the Complainant will believe that this is a USA outlet or affiliate of the Complainant, and be deceived into buying unauthorized and potentially counterfeit products. This clearly constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and the third element of the Policy is satisfied.

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 <goldengooseusa.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2019