Cartiercolombia.com

The timeline behind cartiercolombia.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 Richemont International S.A. v. Tom Reid Case No. D2026-0656 1. The Parties Complainant is Richemont International S.A., Switzerland, represented by Com Laude Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Tom Reid, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cartiercolombia.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hongkong Kouming International Limited (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 16, 2026. On February 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 20, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information f or the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 23, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant f iled an amended Complaint in English on February 27, 2026. On February 23, 2026, the Center inf ormed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. On February 27, 2026, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on March 23, 2026. The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 2026. 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 Complainant, founded in 1988, is the operating company of Richemont group, which o wns luxury brands, such as Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Piaget, Vacheron Constantin, Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC Schaffhausen and Montblanc. Complainant employs over 40,000 people across more than 150 locations worldwide. Complainant operates 277 Cartier boutiques worldwide, including one boutique and 28 authorized dealers in Colombia. Complainant owns and operates numerous registered trademarks f or the CARTIER mark, including: - United States of America registered trademark number 410701, f or the CARTIER word mark, registered on December 12, 1944; - United Kingdom registered trademark number UK0000642791, f or the CARTIER word mark, registered on December 10, 1945; and - Colombian registered trademark number 21063B, for the CARTIER word mark, registered on February 18, 1947. Complainant operates its of f icial website f or the Cartier brand at “www.cartier.co m”. Complainant also operates numerous regional websites either f rom its main domain name <cartier.com> or f rom country- specif ic domain names. Complainant’s Colombian website is at “www.cartier.com/en-co”. The Domain Name was registered on July 26, 2023. When accessed f rom a Colombian IP address, the Domain Name resolved to a website that imitated Complainant’s genuine Cartier website located at the domain name <carter.com> and also featured the heading “Cartier Colombia – Gaf as de moda” (which can be translated as “Cartier Colombia – Fashion Eyewear”), with no disclaimer that clarified Respondent’s lack of relationship with Complainant. When accessed outside of Colombia, the Domain Named resolved to a Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) ad vertising website with some links relating to products and business act iv it ies that were similar to those of Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations and rights f or CARTIER and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, with the intention to conf use Internet users looking f or Complainant’s bona f ide and well-known services. page 3 Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name which includes Complainant’s trademark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad f aith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. Specif ically, Complainant argues that Respondent used the Domain Name to impersonate or pose as Complainant, so as to deceive Internet users into believing that its website is operated by or associated with Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain name, the language of the proceedings shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceedings. Complainant submitted its original Complaint and amended Complaint in English. According to the inf ormation received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the Domain Name includes only Latin characters; the Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s CARTIER mark with the geographical identif ier “Colombia” – neither of which are Chinese words; the Domain Name is registered in the English-language Top-Level Domain “.com” instead of the Chinese- language Top-Level Domain “.cn”; the website to which the Domain Name resolved to did not f eature Chinese, which suggests that Respondent is at least f amiliar with the English language; f urther, that Complainant’s and Complainant’s authorized representative’s working language is English and it would be unduly expensive and burdensome, and cause unwarranted delay, to require Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese or to conduct the proceedings in Chinese. Respondent did not comment on Complainant’s request f or the language of the proceedings be 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). The Panel accepts Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Domain Name does not have any specific meaning in the Chinese language, and that the Domain Name is f ormed using Latin characters, contains Complainant’s CARTIER trademark in its entirety. The Panel f urther notes that the Center notif ied the Parties in Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding as well as notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint. Respondent chose not to comment on the language of the proceeding, nor did Respondent choose to file a Response in Chinese or English. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. page 4 6.2 Substantive Issues Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisf y the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 states that failure to respond to complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s def ault is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has f ailed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the CARTIER trademark, as noted above. Complainant has theref ore proven that it has the requisite rights in the CARTIER trademarks. With Complainant’s rights in the CARTIER trademark established, the remaining question under the f irst element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain in which it was registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or conf usingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No . D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is conf usingly similar to Complainant’s CARTIER trademark. The CARTIER trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. The addition of the geographical term “Colombia” af ter Complainant’s CARTIER trademark in the Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the Domain Name and the CARTIER trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Thus, the Panel f inds that Complainant has satisf ied the f irst element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima f acie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima f acie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its CARTIER trademark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the CARTIER trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating this trademark. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the CARTIER trademark and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or f air use. Rather, the record shows that when accessed f rom a Colombian IP address, the Domain Name resolved to a website that imit ated Complainant’s genuine Cartier website located at the domain name <carter.com>. Complainant noted that it has no af f iliation with page 5 Respondent, noting that Respondent’s website also f eatured the heading “Cartier Colombia – Gaf as de moda”, with no disclaimer that clarif ied Respondent’s lack of relationship with Complainant. UDRP panels have consistently held that use of a domain name for illegal activity — such as impersonation or passing off — can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. When accessed outside of Colombia, the Domain Named resolved to a PPC website with some advertisement links relating to products and b us i nes s activities that were similar to those of Complainant. Complainant notes that none of the websites that the Domain Name resolved to are endorsed by or related to Complainant. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie showing that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has f ailed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel f inds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a respondent, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from ref lecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily f or the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel f inds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the CARTIER trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known; indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s CARTIER trademark and related products and services are known and recognized for purposes of the Policy. Theref ore, and also noting the use analysis below, Respondent was clearly aware of the CARTIER trademark when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel theref ore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad f aith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No . D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No . D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No . D2006-0007. page 6 Moreover, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to confuse and mislead consumers looking f or bona fide and well-known CARTIER products and services of Complainants. In particular, at the time of f iling of the Complaint, the record shows that when accessed f rom a Colombian IP address, the Domain Name resolved to a website that imitates Complainant’s genuine Cartier website located at the domain name <carter.com>. Complainant notes that it has no af f iliation with Respondent, noting that Respondent’s website also featured the heading “Cartier Colombia – Gaf as de moda”, with no disclaimer that clarif ied Respondent’s lack of relationship with Complainant. Theref ore, by using the Domain Name featuring Complainant’s trademarks, and then further to promote the purported Complainant’s products using images apparently copied from Complainant’s website, as shown by evidence in the record - to induce members of the public to pay f or such products, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CARTIER marks as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. UDRP panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to trade of f goodwill in a complainant’s well-known trademark and impersonate complainant, as here, constitutes bad faith. See P hilip Morris Products S.A. v. homn mohmoodi, WIPO Case No . D2022-4158. Moreover, such use of the Domain Name may potentially result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. When accessed outside of Colombia, the Domain Named resolved to a PPC website with links such as “Online Fashion Jewelry Stores”, “Maxine Jewelry” and “Qvc Rings” – each of which related to Complainant’s products and/or industry activities. Such use does not constitute a bona f ide use of the Domain Name. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an error page, which would not prevent a finding of bad f aith under the circumstances of this case. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Finally, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to submit a response, which may be f urther evidence of Respondent’s bad f aith. In the present circumstances, considering the reputation of the CARTIER trademark, and the use of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. Theref ore, the Panel f inds that Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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 <cartiercolombia.com> be transf erred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: April 7, 2026

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