Wwwtissotwatches.com

The timeline behind wwwtissotwatches.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 Tissot SA v. ni hao Case No. D2025-3853 1. The Parties The Complainant is Tissot SA, Switzerland, internally represented. The Respondent is ni hao, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <wwwtissotwatches.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 22, 2025. On September 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 24, 2025, 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 (“Domain Administrator” / “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 24, 2025, 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 on September 29, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On September 29,2025, 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 21, 2025. The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 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 leading designer, manufacturer and retailer of wristwatches. It was founded in 1853 in Switzerland. In the more than 160 years since, the Complainant has become one of the largest traditional Swiss brands based on volume of sales and counts as one of the world’s most well-known watch brands. The Complainant’s website with the domain name <tissotwatches.com> is used to promote the Complainant’s brand and its products. The Complainant is present in more than 160 countries worldwide and has more than 14,000 points of sale and nearly 200 mono-brand stores. The Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Swatch Group Ltd., the latter being one of the largest watch companies in the world that employs about 31,000 people in 50 countries. TISSOT has been named the Official Timekeeper and Partner in many fields of sports competitions including: in basketball - the NBA, FIBA and CBA; in motorsports – MotoGP; in cycling – the Tour de France and the UCI World Cycling Championships; and in rugby – the RBS 6 Nations Championship and the European Rugby Champions and Challenge Cups. The Complainant is the owner of the TISSOT trade mark which has been registered in many territories across the world. Its trade mark registrations for TISSOT and TISSOT-formative marks include the following: (i) United States of America Registration No. 1,639,684, registered on April 2, 1991; (ii) International Registration No. 614931, registered on January 31, 1994; (iii) International Registration No. 532550, registered on December 14, 1998; and (iv) China Registration No. G729106, registered on February 23, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on January 31, 2025 and, at the time of filing the Complaint, redirected to a website with pornographic content. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name comprises solely of the Complainant’s protected trade mark TISSOT and the term “watches”, which denotes the Complainant’s product category. The additional term in the disputed domain name, “www”, is generic and non-distinctive. Hence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TISSOT mark in which it has rights. The Complainant asserts that it is in no way related to the Respondent and it has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trade mark. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. The Respondent’s use of the page 3 disputed domain name to present pornographic content cannot constitute a bona fide use and does not confer legitimate interests in a domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The elements making up the disputed domain name were deliberately chosen by the Respondent to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TISSOT trade mark. The disputed domain name is further used to target the Complainant’s customers by diverting Internet users seeking the Complainant’s official website to the Respondent’s pornographic website. 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 these reasons: 1) in light of the clearly targeted world-famous TISSOT trade mark by the Respondent, it would not be fair or equitable to require the Complainant to go to the time and expense of translating the pleadings into Chinese; and 2) the Respondent chose a domain name that solely consists of English terms, which shows that he has the ability to communicate in English. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. 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 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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. page 4 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “watches” and “www,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. 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. The Complainant’s assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the disputed domain name containing the Complainant’s trade mark has been unrebutted. The disputed domain name has been used to display pornographic material. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is clearly not bona fide, but rather evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 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. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant and its well-known TISSOT trade mark when he registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel notes the resemblance between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s website at “www.tissotwatches.com”, where a “.” after the “www” is omitted in the disputed domain name, which affirms the Panel’s finding. page 5 He used the reputation and fame of the Complainant’s trade mark to attract, for commercial gain, users to his pornographic website. Such use has been well established by previous UDRP cases to be evidence of bad faith registration and use. (See BASF SE v. xiaoyun ma, WIPO Case No. D2020-1528; Red Bull GmbH v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc./ esco escortlar, escort sitesi, WIPO Case No. D2017-1639). The Respondent’s use of what is likely a fake name - “ni hao”, which means “hello” in Chinese - in registering the disputed domain name is a further indication of bad faith. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 <wwwtissotwatches.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Francine Tan/ Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: October28, 2025

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