Westmore · UDRP DecisionQuechuaarpenaz.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <quechuaarpenaz.com> after finding that it combined Decathlon’s QUECHUA and ARPENAZ marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the USD 10,000 sale offer and links to competitors established bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind quechuaarpenaz.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 quechuaarpenaz.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a domain combining two distinctive marks of the same complainant can support both confusing similarity and an inference that the registrant knew of the complainant. The combination of a substantial sale demand and competitor-related links also supplied multiple, independent bad-faith grounds.
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 Decathlon v. Inamullhak CM Case No. D2019-1622 1. The Parties The Complainant is Decathlon, France, represented by AARPI Scan Avocats, France. The Respondent is Inamullhak CM, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <quechuaarpenaz.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 July 10, 2019. On July 11, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 12, 2019, 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 July 18, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 7, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 14, 2019. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 2019. 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 the owner of the marks QUECHUA and ARPENAZ registered, inter alia , for sporting goods from 1998: French word trademark QUECHUA, No. 97702142 registered on October 30, 1997 and registered for goods in classes 9, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 28; French word trademark ARPENAZ, under No. 98744543 registered on August 3, 1998 for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; and Indian word trademark QUECHUA, No. 1612019, registered on October 16, 2007 and registered for goods in classes 18, 21, 22, 25 and 28. The Complainant’s owns the domain name <quechua.com>. The Domain Name registered on September 17, 2018 has been offered for sale for USD 10,000 and pointed to links offering goods of the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the marks QUECHUA and ARPENAZ registered, inter alia , in France and other jurisdictions for sporting goods from 1998. It owns <quechua.com>. The Domain Name registered in September 2018, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks including them both and merely adding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which does not prevent such confusing similarity. A domain name composed of two of a complainant’s trade marks is confusingly similar to each of those marks. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant to use its trade marks. The Domain Name is for sale for USD 10,000 and has been connected to pay-per-click links redirecting to competitors of the Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is bad faith registration and use. The Respondent is creating confusion in order to divert consumers from the Complainant for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s QUECHUA mark (registered, inter alia , in France and other jurisdictions for sporting goods from 1997), the Complainant’s ARPENAZ mark (also registered, inter alia , in France and other jurisdictions for sporting goods from 1997) and the gTLD “.com”. Combining two of a complainant’s marks in a domain name does not prevent confusing similarity between the domain name and each of those marks. The gTLD “.com” does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s marks, which are still recognisable in the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to marks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks. The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has offered the Domain Name for sale. The Domain Name has been used for links to competitors of the Complainant. These uses are not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy, paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii). As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The fact that the Domain Name contains two of the Complainant’s marks demonstrates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the Domain Name. Offering a disputed domain name up for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket registration costs such as USD 10,000 in this case is evidence of bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i). Furthermore, pointing a domain name to links offering competing goods, such as, in this case, tents made by competitors of the Complainant, is diverting Internet users for commercial gain under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv) and is disruptive to the Complainant’s business under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and 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 Domain Name, <quechuaarpenaz.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: August 31, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around quechuaarpenaz.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.