Westmore · UDRP DecisionPhilipppleindesigner.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <philipppleindesigner.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the PHILIPP PLEIN trademarks because it incorporated the full mark and added only the descriptive term “designer.” Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the associated website displayed copies of Complainant’s logo and trademark, referenced clothing bearing the mark, and was neither authorized nor a bona fide offering. Bad faith was established from the website content, which demonstrated awareness of Complainant’s mark and an apparent attempt to confuse and commercially attract Internet users.
The timeline behind philipppleindesigner.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 philipppleindesigner.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward UDRP application where a domain reproduces a personal-name trademark and adds an occupation-related term that reinforces, rather than reduces, association with the trademark owner. The associated website’s reproduction of the trademark owner’s branding was important both to the absence of legitimate interests and to the inference of knowledge and bad faith.
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 Philipp Plein v. Chongti Case No. D2015-0669 1. The Parties Complainant is Philipp Plein of Amriswil, Switzerland, represented by LermerRaible IP Law Firm, Germany. Respondent is Chongti of Chongqing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <philipppleindesigner.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 16, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 24, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 14, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 15, 2015. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2015. 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 designs and sells clothing, footwear and other goods under his individual name PHILIPP PLEIN, which is also the name of his website located at “www.philipp-plein.com” from which Complainant’s goods can be purchased. Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the mark PHILIPP PLEIN, including International trademark No. 794860 (registered December 13, 2002) and Community Trademark No. 002966505 (registered January 21, 2005) covering various goods, including clothing and footwear. The disputed domain name was registered on May 7, 2014, several years after Complainant’s trademarks were registered. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark rights in his name, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Complainant has the burden of proving each of the following three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name: (i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant owns an International Trademark Registration and Community Trademark Registration for the mark PHILIPP PLEIN, which is also his individual name. These marks were registered many years before the disputed domain name was registered. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s full name, with the addition of the descriptive term “designer”. The addition of the term “designer” does not add any distinguishing element to the disputed domain name, particularly as Complainant himself is a designer. Also, the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gtld) “.com” does not add any distinguishing element. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on previous UDRP decisions, “a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.” See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1 . Complainant’s allegations in the Complaint and evidence submitted on this issue are sufficient to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reverts to a website displaying copies of Complainant’s logo, trademark and photos of clothing items referencing Complainant’s mark. Complainant submits that the goods displayed on Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name are counterfeit goods. Respondent has provided no evidence or argument to refute Complainant’s submission. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and has no permission from Complainant to use Complainant’s mark or any domain name incorporating that mark. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the name Philipp Plein with or without the term “designer”. Nothing in the WhoIs contact information for Respondent implies that it is commonly known by either name. Accordingly, Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Respondent’s website offers clothing items bearing Complainant’s mark that appear to be counterfeits of Complainant’s goods. It appears that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent is related to or authorized by Complainant. Alternatively, Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. In view of the content of Respondent’s website, including possible counterfeits of Complainant’s clothing items bearing Complainant’s mark, there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s trademark at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name in May 2014. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 <philipppleindesigner.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around philipppleindesigner.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.