Vejatenisicehrvatska.com

The timeline behind vejatenisicehrvatska.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Veja Fair Trade, Sarl v. Name Redacted Case No. D2023-2993 1. The Parties The Complainant is Veja Fair Trade, Sarl, France, represented by Saf eBrands, France. The Respondent is Name Redacted 0F 1 . 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vejatenisicehrvatska.com> (“Do main Name”) is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 13, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On July 14, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which diff ered f rom the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 20, 2023, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on July 21, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the Domain Name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Domain Name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST 12785241 Attn. <Bradescourgente.net> / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 25, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 14, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. On August 8, 2023, the Center received an email f rom a third party. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the commencement of panel appointment process on August 25, 2023. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 2023. The Panel f inds 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 French Company duly registered since at least August 24, 2004. Since 2005, the Complainant has become one of the leading names in the shoe industry notably in France. The Complainant mainly of f ers its products through its official website at “www.veja-sto re.co m”. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations f or VEJA, including: - the European Union trademark registration No. 9075003, VEJA (fig.), filed on May 3, 2010, and registered on November 30, 2012, f or goods in international classes 18 and 25, and - the International trademark registration No. 848383, VEJA (fig.), filed and registered on February 1, 2005, f or goods in international classes 18 and 25. The Complainant also maintains domain name registrations f or VEJA, including the domain name <veja-store.com>, registered on March 21, 2007. The Domain Name was registered on July 13, 2021, and at the time of filing of the Complaint, it redirected to a website under “www.vejatenisice-hr.com” (the “Web site”) that reproduced the Complainant’s trademarks, logo, copyrighted photos and graphic charter in order to sell heavily discounted goods, suspected to be counterfeit, purportedly of the Complainant. The Website was blocked and Internet users had to use a VPN tool to access it. Currently, the Domain Name leads to a blocked page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy f or a transf er of the Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On August 8, 2023, the Center received an email f rom a third party claiming that the Respondent used her identity and contact details to register the Domain Name and that named Respondent was unaware of the Domain Name, its registration, and the provided contact details in the WhoIs records which were entered without her knowledge or autho rization. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements which the Complainant must satisf y with respect to the Domain Name: page 3 (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly 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 f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s VEJA trademark in its entirety. This is suf f icient to establish conf using similarity. The Domain Name incorporates the said trademark of the Complainant in its entirety with the addition of the words “tenisice” and “hrvatska” which in Croatian mean “Croatian tennis shoes”. The Panel f inds that the trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No . D2000-1525; WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not f orm part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required f or technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No . D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No . D2002-0122). The Panel f inds that the Domain Name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has established the Po licy, p arag rap h 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the f ollowing elements: (i) bef ore any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of , or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per the Complainant, the Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. The Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use nor used the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as the Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name was used to host the Website to impersonate the Complainant and attempt to mislead consumers into thinking that the goods purportedly of fered for sale on the Website originated from the Complainant. Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide of fering of goods nor a legitimate interest of the Respondent (Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine, WIPO Case No . D2015-0502). page 4 The Domain Name falsely suggested that the Website was of f icial site of the Complainant or of an entity af f iliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Website extensively reproduced, without authorization by the Complainant, the Complainant’s trademarks, logos, copyrighted photos and graphic charter without any disclaimer of association (or lack thereof ) with the Complainant. The Panel f inds that these circumstances do not conf er upon the Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has established the Po licy, p arag rap h 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad f aith”: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transf erring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs d irectly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding Domain Name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad f aith. Because the Complainant’s mark had been used and registered by the Complainant bef ore the Domain Name registration, and noting the content of the corresponding Website, it is clear that the Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No . D2014-1754; and Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No . D2000-0226). Furthermore, the content of the Website gives the impression that it originates f rom the Complainant, prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademarks and product photographs, thereby giving the f alse impression that the Website emanates f rom or is endorsed by the Complainant. This f urther supports registration in bad faith reinforcing the likelihood of conf usion, as Internet users are likely to consider the Domain Name as in some way endorsed by or connected with the Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). The Domain Name incorporates entirely the Complainant’s trademark plus additional words, one of which is descriptive of the goods provided by the Complainant. This f urther indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc, WIPO Case No . D2015-0403). As regards bad faith use, the Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name was employed to host the Website, accessed only, per the Complainant, through a VPN tool, which appeared f alsely to be that of or endorsed by the Complainant reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks, logo, copyrighted photos and graphic charter in order to sell heavily discounted goods, purportedly of the Complainant, suspected to be counterf eit. page 5 Furthermore, the Domain Name has been operated by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and business. This further supports the finding of bad faith use (Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine, supra; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Priscilla Quaiotti Passos, WIPO Case No. D2011-0388; and WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1). The Domain Name currently leads to an error page. The non-use of a domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the circumstances of this proceeding (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No . D2000-0003; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad f aith. The Complainant has established the Po licy, p arag rap h 4(a)(iii). 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <vejatenisicehrvatska.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: September 27, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.