Marielundde.com

The timeline behind marielundde.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Peek & Cloppenburg KG v. sui yuying Case No. D2024-5288 1. The Parties The Complainant is Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Germany, represented by Hogan Lovells International LLP, Germany. The Respondent is sui yuying, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marielundde.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 23, 2024. On December 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown, Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 24, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on December 26, 2024. On December 24, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Chinese. On December 26, 2024, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”). Page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 29, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2025. The Center appointed Andrew Sim as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 2025. 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 trading company with an address in Hamburg, Germany. From a preliminary online search and based on the Complainant’s uses of its trademarks, the Complainant appears to be an apparel retailer based in Germany and with presence in various countries in Europe. The Complainant holds a number of registered trademarks for MARIE LUND (in lowercase and/or uppercase) (the “MARIE LUND Trademark”) in various jurisdictions. Jurisdiction Mark Registration Number Registration Date Class(es) Covered Status Germany Marie Lund 30459485 November 10, 2004 18, 25, and 35 Registered International Marie Lund 844749 (designating, among others, China) December 2, 2004 18, 25, and 35 Registered From the website links provided by the Complainant (“www.peek-und-cloppenburg.de/m/marie-lund/”, “www.vangraaf.com/de/m/damenmode/marie-lund/”, and “www.zalando.de/damen/marie-lund/”), it appears that the MARIE LUND Trademark is being used as a brand name for various apparel, mostly for women, sold by the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name <marielundde.com> was registered on September 13, 2023. Based on the Complainant’s evidence and confirmed by the Panel’s own visit, upon visiting the Disputed Domain Name, it resolves to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) in the German language on which the MARIE LUND Trademark is featured prominently on the top left corner. Various apparel products, with the MARIE LUND Trademark incorporate within the product names, are listed for sale. Various product photos from the Complainant’s website (“www.vangraaf.com/de/”) (“Complainant’s Website”) also appear on the Respondent’s Website. According to the Complainant’s uncontroverted evidence, the contact address shown on the Respondent’s Website is a false and non-existing address. In the “About Us” section of the Respondent's Website, the Respondent claims to be connected with “Equifax”, and is said to be a “global online wholesaler” with “an extensive network of professional manufacturers, factories and distributors for [its] products”. However, based on the Complainant’s evidence and the Panel’s own research, there is no online information as to an apparel wholesaler named “Equifax”. The top search result for “Equifax” appears to be Equifax Inc., an American multinational consumer credit reporting agency with no presence in the apparel industry. On November 13, 2024, the Complainant conducted a test purchase of a dress branded “Marie Lund Minikleider Blusenkleid Frauen Sand” on the Respondent’s Website. The dress was never delivered. The Complainant followed up on the test purchase on November 20, 2024 by leaving a message on the Respondent’s Website, but no reply was received. Various other attempts were made by the Complainant to contact the Respondent, but none of which was successful. Page 3 Little information is known about the Respondent. Available information provided by the Registrar covers only the registrant’s name, postal address, telephone number, and email address. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. First, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical or at least highly similar to the Complainant’s MARIE LUND Trademark, as the Disputed Domain Name contains the MARIE LUND Trademark in full, except the space in between MARIE and LUND. The only differences between the Complainant’s MARIE LUND Trademark and the Disputed Domain Name are the insertions of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and a geographical term “de”. The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is highly similar to the MARIE LUND Trademark visually, aurally and conceptually, and consumers will not pay much attention to the additional elements. Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been licensed or otherwise permitted to use the MARIE LUND Trademark. The Respondent has never intended to use the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, as the products sold on the Respondent’s Website are all branded with the MARIE LUND Trademark instead of “Marielundde” as in the Disputed Domain Name. The lack of legitimate interests is also underlined by the lack of intention to supply the products offered. The Respondent’s selection of “.com” as the gTLD also tends to support the above conclusion. Third, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant reiterates its extensive registrations and uses of the MARIE LUND Trademark on clothing goods and on social media for many years and in various countries. The Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to visit the Respondent’s Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MARIE LUND Trademark. Bad faith is also manifested by the non-delivery of goods purchased. The Respondent’s act of purporting to offer the Complainant’s MARIE LUND products for sale also demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the MARIE LUND Trademark at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including: Page 4 (a) the Complainant is a German company, and proceeding in Chinese would infringe its right to a fair trial, as it is not familiar with the Chinese language; (b) the Respondent’s Website is in the German language and targets the German-speaking market; and (c) the Complainant should be entitled to demand that the proceeding be conducted in German, and it is already a disadvantage for the Complainant to have to conduct the proceeding in English and not in German. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. This is despite the fact that the Center had sent the notification of the Complaint which includes instructions on the language of the proceeding to the Respondent in both Chinese and English. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, in an administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: (a) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (c) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being using in bad faith. For the below reasons, support for the Complaint can be found due to the satisfaction of the three conditions for the Disputed Domain Name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the MARIE LUND Trademark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Although the additions of the term “de” following the MARIE LUND Trademark may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the MARIE LUND Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARIE LUND Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. Page 5 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. From the overall appearance of the Respondent’s Website as described in section 4 above, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s Website is used for illegal or illegitimate activities for the following reasons: (i) the MARIE LUND Trademark is reproduced on the Website in a prominent manner, to give an impression of affiliation, but the Respondent has never been licensed or otherwise permitted to do so; (ii) the Respondent infringes the Complainant’s copyright in reproducing the product photos from the Complainant’s Website to the Respondent’s Website; (iii) the Respondent falsely misrepresents itself as “Equifax” on the Respondent’s Website; and (iv) the Respondent operates the Respondent’s Website likely in a fraudulent manner, as it seems the Respondent has no intention to supply the products listed after accepting payment as evidenced by the test purchase. According to previous UDRP decisions, the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. Particularly in regards to the three illustrative examples of legitimate interests in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Panel finds that: (i) the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as the Panel has ruled that the Respondent’s Website is being used for illegal or illegitimate activities; (ii) the Disputed Domain Name does not correspond with the Respondent’s name (i.e., “ sui yuying”), and there is no evidence of the Respondent operating any business or organization with similar name as the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name does not fall within the scope of legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the Respondent’s Website is being used for illegal or illegitimate activities. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. Page 6 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the circumstances of registering and using the Disputed Domain Name clearly demonstrate the Respondent’s bad faith and have constituted the situation as specified in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy: (a) the Complainant’s MARIE LUND Trademark has been registered since 2004 before the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARIE LUND Trademark; (b) the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant and the MARIE LUND Trademark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name, as the MARIE LUND Trademark has been extended to China, where the Respondent resides, through the international registration IR844749 since 2004, and that the Respondent’s Website targets the German-speaking market, where the Complainant is based; (c) as earlier found in section 6.2B above that the Respondent’s Website is being used for illegal or illegitimate activities, bad faith is manifestly apparent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4; (d) a presumption of bad faith is created from the fact that the Respondent, being an unaffiliated entity with the Complainant, registers the Disputed Domain Name which is almost identical with the MARIE LUND Trademark, which has a certain degree of fame in Germany through extensive use, without any possible justification, particularly noting the discussion in section 6.2B above. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4; (e) there is no reasonable connection or association between the Respondent and the Disputed Domain Name; (f) the Respondent’s Website targets the Complainant, with the products listed using the MARIE LUND Trademark; and (g) the risk of confusion arises from the composition of the disputed domain name and its website, and is further exemplified by the fact the Respondent’s Website and disputed domain name appears in the result if a consumer searches “Marie Lund” via Google or Microsoft Bing. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <marielundde.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrew Sim/ Andrew Sim Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2025

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