Westmore · UDRP DecisionPleinphilipp-shop.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <pleinphilipp-shop.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the PHILIPP PLEIN trademark despite reversing the two names and adding a hyphen and the word “shop.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was not known by a corresponding name, had not been authorized, and filed no response. Bad faith was established from the Respondent’s use of the recently registered domain to purport to sell Philipp Plein products without authorization, supporting findings of disruption and attempted commercial attraction through confusion.
The timeline behind pleinphilipp-shop.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 pleinphilipp-shop.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that reversing the order of words in a distinctive two-word mark does not necessarily prevent confusing similarity, particularly where the domain also adds a commercially relevant term such as “shop.” It also shows how a website purporting to sell the trademark owner’s products shortly after registration can connect the domain’s composition with a finding of bad-faith commercial targeting.
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. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. Case No. D2016-1519 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philipp Plein of Amriswil, Germany, represented by LermerRaible IP Law Firm, Germany. The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pleinphilipp-shop.com> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 26, 2016. On July 27, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 11, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 31, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 1, 2016. The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 2016. 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 fashion designer who markets his clothes, shoes and accessories through a number of domain names, notably <plein.com> registered on February 20, 1997. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks in a variety of countries for PHILIPP PLEIN, including United States of America, registration No. 2869210 which was registered on August 3, 2004. The disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2016. The website at the disputed domain name appears or purports to sell the Complainant’s products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant These are the Complainant’s contentions. The trademark and the disputed domain name contain the same words. The addition of the words “shop” and a hyphen do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. There is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The disputed domain was registered and is being used to sell counterfeit goods. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business. In doing so, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and goods. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark with the two names involved reversed, a hyphen, the generic word “shop” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Since the Complainant sells his goods throughout an Internet or website shop, one can see that the addition of the word “shop” and the gTLD “.com” does nothing to affect the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Reversing the two parts of the trademark equally does not affect the disputed domain name’s confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. Although “Philipp” is a common first name and “plein” is the French for “full”, the combination of the two names is unusual and thus distinctive. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not called “Philipp Plein” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith A short time after registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent was purporting to sell Philipp Plein products from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. This supports the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to sell the Complainant’s products without the Complainant’s authorization. The Respondent appears from this to have registered the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with their customers or potential customers and/or to attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain. This constitutes evidence of registration and use 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, <pleinphilipp-shop.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Adam Samuel Sole Panelist Date: September 12, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around pleinphilipp-shop.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.