Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2011-0565

Chupachupsstore.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <chupachupsstore.com> based on the Respondent’s genuine unilateral consent to transfer. Exercising its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel found it unnecessary to consider the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2011-05-13
Panelist(s)
Ochoa, Enrique
Complainant
Perfetti Van Melle SpA
Respondent
The Lamp Outlet
Counsel
Perfetti Van Melle S.p.A
Disputed domain(s)
chupachupsstore.com
Citation weightCited by 1 later decision · relies on 2 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind chupachupsstore.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind chupachupsstore.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of chupachupsstore.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

This decision illustrates a consent-to-transfer disposition in which the Panel used its procedural discretion to order transfer without determining any of the three substantive UDRP elements. It should therefore not be treated as authority that <chupachupsstore.com> was substantively found confusingly similar, unsupported by rights or legitimate interests, or registered and used in bad faith.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarnot_reached
Rights or legitimate interestsnot_reached
Registered and used in bad faithnot_reached

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2011-05-13
Panel
Ochoa, Enrique
Full decision
5 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Perfetti Van Melle SpA v. The Lamp Outlet Case No. D2011-0565 1. The Parties The Complainant is Perfetti Van Melle SpA of Lainate (MI), Italy, represented by Perfetti Van Melle S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is The Lamp Outlet of Bono, Arkansas, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <chupachupsstore.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 29, 2011. On March 29, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 30, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 April 1, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 21, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 26, 2011. The Center appointed Enrique Ochoa de González Argüelles as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 2011. 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. On April 29, 2011, Respondent sent an e-mail to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center setting forth the following: “Hi […], I am sorry... due to an overzealous spam folder, your notifications have not been received up to this point... just automatically deleted. We would be more than happy to transfer the domain, but it seems it is now locked and cannot be deleted or transferred. Any suggestions for taking care of this would be most appreciated. Thanks” On May 2, 2011, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center acknowledged receipt of said communication, also copying the Complainant, including the Respondent’s preceding communication. 4. Factual Background Complainant is the owner of many trademark registrations and applications for CHUPA CHUPS word and/or device, covering products of different international classes but used in particular on lollipops in different countries of Europe and in the United States of America since 1964 . CHUPA CHUPS has been used on lollipops since 1958 in Spain and nowadays CHUPA CHUPS products are widely advertised and sold successfully all round the world. Complainant’s web site “www.chupachups.com” is specifically dedicated to CHUPA CHUPS and it illustrates the relating history, products, promotions and licenses. The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that: The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent’s domain name consists of the words “chupa chups” (exactly the same fancy expression protected by the Complainant’s trademark registrations) and the common English term “store”, which has no power to differentiate the domain name from the trademark. On the contrary, the association of “chupachups” with the word “store” in the domain name suggests to people searching the Internet that the relating web site may be a virtual shop where the Complainant’s products CHUPA CHUPS can be bought. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name subject of this Complaint. Respondent has no rights based upon tradition or legitimate prior use of the name chosen for their domain name. Respondent is making neither a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name nor a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has never approached the Complainant to inform of their intention to register the challenged domain name or to ask for consent to its registration. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, their only reply being the above-mentioned e-mail communication indicating apparent consent to transfer the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings This Panel considers that Respondent by registering the disputed domain name agreed to comply with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as well as the GoDaddy Domain Name Registration Agreement. In terms of paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel has the discretion to conduct the proceeding in such manner as it deems convenient and the authority to proceed immediately to make an order for transfer given that Respondent has already agreed on the transfer of the disputed domain name, as set forth above. Consequently, the Panel does not consider it necessary, in the present case, to review the facts supporting the claim since a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order to transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. (See e.g . Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207 and Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León v. Flex Media Inc. , WIPO Case No. DMX2010-0014 , and other prior decisions to similar effect cited in paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition “WIPO Overview, 2.0”). 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 <chupachupsstore.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Enrique Ochoa de González Argüelles Sole Panelist Dated: May 13, 2011

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around chupachupsstore.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,979 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.