Jackjones86.com

The timeline behind jackjones86.com

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

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

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 A/S v. Li Xingfeng Case No. D2011-0987 1. The Parties The Complainant is Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 A/S of Brande, Denmark, represented by Bech-Bruun Law Firm, Denmark. The Respondent is Li Xingfeng of Alcatec, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <jackjones86.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2011. On June 10, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 10, 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 June 21, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 11, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2011. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 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. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a widely-known global manufacturer and retailer of clothing and accessories under the trademark JACK JONES. The Complainant operates more than 2,500 stores in 46 countries around the world. Dating back to as early as 1990, the Complainant has registered the trademark mark JACK JONES in numerous jurisdictions worldwide including Denmark, the European Union, the United States of America, and Australia. The Complainant conducts promotional activities and retail sales through the website <jackjones.com>. The disputed domain name was created on November 26, 2009. According to the concerned Registrar, GoDaddy.com, Inc., the disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent on January 4, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is part of an illegal scheme to market and sell counterfeit Jack Jones apparel. The Complainant asserts the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Jack Jones mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent's website to sell counterfeit Jack Jones clothing. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy articulates three elements that must be established by a complainant to merit a finding that a respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and to obtain relief. These elements are that: i) The respondent’s domain name 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 in respect of the domain name, and iii) The respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark with the exception of the addition of the number "86" as a suffix. The mere addition of a random number as a suffix to the Complainant’s trademark is insufficient to avoid confusingly similarity between the domain name and the trademark. ECCO Sko AIS v. Protected Domain Services Customer ID: NCR-2448048 /jizhiteam, WIPO Case No. D2010-1113 ( transferring <51ecco.com>). The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JACK JONES mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has specifically asserted that the Respondent was never granted any authority to register or to use the disputed domain name or the JACK JONES mark. It is apparent that the disputed domain name is being utilized for commercial gain. There are no indicia that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or has ever been known by the disputed domain name. Under these circumstances, one would have expected the Respondent to come forth with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no such showing. Christian Dior v. Carl Lim, WIPO Case No. D2008-1038 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant is a globally well-known manufacturer and retailer of clothing apparel. The Complainant's JACK JONES family of marks were registered in numerous jurisdictions, including Australia, long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. More tellingly, the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the JACK JONES mark and resolves to a website selling apparently falsely labeled Jack Jones apparel. The use of a domain name for the promotion and sale of potentially counterfeit goods is compelling evidence of bad faith. Hermes International v. Jody Chris, Hairlord, WIPO Case No. D2011-0047 . On the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith. 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 <jackjones86.com> be transferred to the Complainant. William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Dated: July 30, 2011

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