Westmore · UDRP DecisionJaegerlecoultreblog.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <jaegerlecoultreblog.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's JAEGER-LECOULTRE mark because it reproduced the mark without its hyphen and added only the dictionary word “blog.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the use was neither a bona fide business nor a genuine blog and included advertising links, including links to competitors. The Panel inferred bad-faith registration and use from the notoriety of the mark, the website's use, and the apparent intention to obtain commercial gain by creating confusion.
The timeline behind jaegerlecoultreblog.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 jaegerlecoultreblog.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates that adding a content-descriptive word such as “blog” to a distinctive trademark generally does not prevent confusing similarity. It also shows that labeling a website as a blog does not establish legitimacy where the content is incoherent, the site solicits visitor information, and it carries commercial links involving competitors. The Panel's bad-faith analysis relied on the longstanding notoriety of the mark, the domain's composition, the actual website use, and the absence of a contrary explanation.
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 Richemont International S.A. v. Lubos Novak Case No. D2014-1576 1. The Parties The Complainant is Richemont International S.A. of Bellevue-Geneva, Switzerland, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Lubos Novak of Prague, Czech Republic. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <jaegerlecoultreblog.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 12, 2014. On September 15, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 15, 2014, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 8, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 9, 2014. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 16, 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 is a leading provider of luxury wrist watches and clocks marketed and sold under the trade name Jaeger-LeCoultre. It was founded in 1833 and has been a hallmark of craftsmanship and design since then. The Complainant offers its luxury watches across the world through a network of Jaeger-LeCoultre boutiques and over 800 authorized Jaeger-LeCoultre retailers. The Complainant is the proprietor of a substantial number of registered trademarks around the world in respect of the JAEGER-LECOULTRE word mark or stylized word mark. These include Community trademark No. 012196168 registered on July 3, 2014, United States trademark no. 1339139 registered on June 4, 1985, and Swiss trademark No. 311357 originally registered under No. 190762 on June 6, 1942. The Domain Name was registered on April 19, 2014 and at the date of the Complaint was being used for a website whose home page was headed "Jaeger-LeCoultre Blog" and comprised an incomprehensible series of headings and references to what may be different Jaeger-LeCoultre models. It also comprised tabs marked "JAEGER-LECOULTRE USED" and "JAEGER-LECOULTRE WHERE TO BUY" whose web pages solicit Internet users to provide their name and email address by way of an invitation to "Leave a Reply". The latter web page also includes advertising links to third party websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its JAEGER-LECOULTRE trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant asserts that the website to which the Domain Name resolves publishes advertising links to third party websites selling products that compete directly with the products of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the 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 Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has undoubted, uncontested rights in the trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE both by virtue of its various trademark registrations and as acquired through widespread use in many countries of the world for very many years. Ignoring the ".com" suffix for this purpose, the Domain Name comprises the trademark JAEGER-LECOULTRE, without the hyphen, together only with the dictionary word "blog". The addition of this word does not detract from the distinctiveness of the JAEGER-LECOULTRE mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark or marks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorised in any way by the Complainant to use the JAEGER-LECOULTRE mark as part of its domain name. As the Complainant points out, the Domain Name is being used for a website with advertising links including to competitors of the Complainant. The Panel considers that the website to which the Doman Name resolves is not operating any bona fide or legitimate business, is certainly not what could properly be described as a blog, and may exist to phish for names and email addresses. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to put forward any explanation as to what rights or legitimate interests it may have in the Domain Name or to dispel the prima facie case made out by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the Panel's view there can be no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the notorious JAEGER-LECOULTRE mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel equally finds it inconceivable that the Respondent could have had any legitimate reason for registering the Domain Name, particularly given the use to which it has been put. In the absence of any Response from the Respondent, the obvious inference is that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name with a view to commercial gain, and has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used 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 disputed domain name <jaegerlecoultreblog.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: October 29, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around jaegerlecoultreblog.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.