Westmore · UDRP DecisionDiorlondonescorts.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <diorlondonescorts.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the famous DIOR mark, held that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that the Respondent knowingly used the mark with terms suggesting luxury escort services in London to attract users for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind diorlondonescorts.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 diorlondonescorts.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that using a famous luxury mark with geographic and service-related terms may remain confusingly similar and may support bad faith where the resulting domain commercially suggests that the trademark owner provides the referenced services. A difference between the parties’ actual fields of business did not protect the Respondent because the Panel found deliberate exploitation of the mark’s luxury reputation, together with dilution and tarnishment concerns.
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 Christian Dior Couture v. Identity Protection Service / Tom Birkett Case No. D2014-1053 1. The Parties The Complainant is Christian Dior Couture of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Marc Sabatier, France. The Respondent is Identity Protection Service of Godalming, Surrey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland / tom birkett of Mitcham, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <diorlondonescorts.com> is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2014. On June 19, 2014, with reminder on June 30, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 2014, 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 July 3, 2014 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 on July 4, 2014. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 3, 2014. The Response was filed with the Center on July 26, 2014. The Center received email communications from the Respondent on July 28, 2014 and July 29, 2014. The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on August 11, 2014. 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 owns the famous trademark DIOR for luxury fashion goods as early as 1953. The disputed domain name was registered on October 12, 2012. The Respondent does not have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant’s mark or to sell its products. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site offering escort services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it owns numerous registered trademarks around the world for the mark DIOR and that that mark is famous. It is used to market a variety of luxury goods. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark because it incorporates the mark and adds a common word and the name of a city. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. No license, contract or other authorization was granted to register and use the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name. Since the Complainant’s mark is famous, the Respondent must have known about it when he registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name links to a website which proposes escort services. The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent in order to attract intentionally, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site. B. Respondent The Response is reproduced in extenso : “1. The domain clearly states what type of business this is and in no way tries to imply it is related to any products that Christian Dior Couture supply, the web site has never, nor will ever, display fashion items or anything that is currently sold by the company, no branding of Christian Dior Couture appears on the site. Christian Dior is a world wide company and does not supply or trade in London alone, it has never been known as Dior London 2. The domain name does not relate to any such business run by any company and is a name. 3. I, nor have any of my colleagues tried to contact Christian Dior Couture or any of its representatives in any form to seek, lease or rent this domain name back to them” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is clear to the Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s mark, because it contains the mark and merely adds the common word “escorts” and the name of the city of London to form the disputed domain name. See PACCAR, Inc. v. Enyart Associates and Truckalley.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0289 ; see also Quixtar Investments Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman , WIPO Case No. D2000-0253 . The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof for this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent does not have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant’s mark or to sell its products. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer escort services. Where a party has registered and used a domain name in bad faith (see the discussion below), that party cannot be found to have made a bona fide offering of goods and services, see The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Azra Khan , WIPO Case No. D2002-0701 ; see also AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian , WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 . Thus, it cannot be said that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent admits to being aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when he registered the disputed domain name. His defense for the use of the Complainant’s mark is that his business is not related to that of the Complainant, that the Complainant is not known as “Dior London”, and that he has not tried to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Given that the Complainant’s mark is famous, and is associated with luxury products, it is obvious, in the Panel’s view, that its use in the disputed domain name is meant to indicate that the Complainant is offering luxury escort services in London, United Kingdom. The Panel finds that this is an obvious abuse of the Complainant’s mark, in particular because it can lead to dilution and tarnishment. See Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake PartyCase , WIPO Case No. D2000-1415 ; see also Motorola, Inc. vs NewGate Internet, Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2000-0079 . Further, it is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Utensilerie Associate S.p.A. v. C & M , WIPO Case No. D2003-0159 . The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under this element of the Policy. 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 <diorlondonescorts.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Richard Hill Sole Panelist Date: August 13, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around diorlondonescorts.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore 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.