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

Jacquemus SAS v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc.

Case No. D2020-2063

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jacquemus SAS, France, represented by DBK, Société d’avocats, France.

The Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <jacqumus.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with Epik, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 6, 2020, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2020.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 2020. 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 clothing and accessories company, based in Paris, which commenced business in 2013. Its name is derived from that of its founder, Simon Porte Jacquemus.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of various trade mark registrations protecting “Jacquemus”, the name under which it conducts business. One such registration is International Trade Mark Registration No. 1211398 registered on February 5, 2014, JACQUEMUS (word) for a variety of goods in classes 9, 18, and 25. The company has developed a significant international reputation for the quality of its goods. In 2019, the Complainant’s founder was nominated for the award of Brand of the Year and Accessories Designer of the Year at the British Fashion Awards.

The Complainant’s official website is connected to the domain name, <jacquemus.com>.

The Domain Name was registered on June 19, 2020, in the name of the Respondent, which is a Whois privacy service provider. The identity of the underlying registrant has not been revealed to either the Center or the Panel.

On June 23, 2020, the Complainant’s representative sent an email to the Respondent drawing the Respondent’s attention to the Complainant’s trade mark rights and seeking inter alia transfer of the Domain Name. The email accused the Respondent of cybersquatting and of linking the Domain Name to a malware website calculated to infect computers visiting the site with a virus. The Complainant received no reply to that email.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its JACQUEMUS registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name has been selected to target the Complainant’s trade mark by way of typosquatting and to cause damage to the Complainant’s reputation by connecting the Domain Name to a website calculated to infect with a virus the computers of visitors to the website.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the name, “Jacqumus”, and the “.com” generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier. For the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under this element of the Policy the gTLD identifier may be ignored where, as here, it serves no purpose beyond the technical one.

The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s JACQUEMUS trade mark, save that it omits the letter “e”. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent and has not authorized the Respondent to make use of this or any other variant of its trade mark. As indicated above, the Complainant asserts that this is a classic case of typosquatting and with a particularly egregious objective, namely to confuse Internet visitors looking for the Complainant and to cause damage to them and to the reputation of the Complainant by infecting the visitors’ computers with a virus.

The Panel has attempted to visit the website connected to the Domain Name but was unable to access it, receiving a message that the website is insecure. The Complainant has not produced screenshots of the objectionable website, but the allegations to that effect are clearly made in the email sent to the Respondent by the Complainant’s representative on June 23, 2020. The Panel accepts on the balance of probabilities that those allegations were soundly based and notes too that the Respondent did not see fit to respond to that letter.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, in other words a case calling for an answer. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s allegations. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no answer to those allegations and finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trade mark is an unusual name with no obvious meaning. The Domain Name is substantially identical to that trade mark and, again, with no obvious meaning. In the view of the Panel it is more likely than not that in registering the Domain Name the Respondent was intentionally targeting the Complainant. Given (i) the Panel’s finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and (ii) the evidence of the Complainant as to the use to which the Domain Name has been put, evidence which the Respondent has not sought to challenge, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The fact that the objectionable use now appears to have ceased is of no moment. In the view of the Panel, while the Domain Name remains in the hands of the Respondent, it represents a malicious threat hanging over the head of the Complainant and, as such, a continuing bad faith use of the Domain Name.

Why the Respondent should wish to cause such damage is a mystery. The answer might have come clear if the Respondent, a privacy service, had disclosed the name of the underlying registrant.

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, <jacqumus.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: September 28, 2020

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/