DECISION

 

Atelier Luxury Group, LLC v. Giuliana Proto

Claim Number: FA2205001997580

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Atelier Luxury Group, LLC ("Complainant") represented by Hannah Cannom of Walker Stevens Cannom LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Giuliana Proto ("Respondent"), Alabama, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <amiriclothingstore.shop>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 23, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 23, 2022.

 

On May 24, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <amiriclothingstore.shop> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On May 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 14, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amiriclothingstore.shop. Also on May 25, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 17, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has offered clothing and related goods under the AMIRI mark since at least October 2014, with "tens of millions of dollars" of sales every year in the United States and across the world. Complainant's products are sold through Complainant's website and at select luxury department stores and high-end fashion boutiques. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for AMIRI and related marks.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <amiriclothingstore.shop> in March 2022. The domain name is being used for a website that displays Complainant's mark, in the same stylized form used by Complainant. The website offers for sale products that Complainant alleges are counterfeit versions of its own products, at deeply discounted prices. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not a licensee of Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <amiriclothingstore.shop> is confusingly similar to its AMIRI mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)  the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <amiriclothingstore.shop> incorporates Complainant's registered AMIRI trademark, adding the generic terms "clothing" and "store" and the ".shop" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., San Antonio Shoe, Inc. v. Sgfgc Ugh et al., FA 1988967 (Forum May 4, 2022) (finding <sasshoestore.shop> confusingly similar to SAS); Atelier Luxury Group, LLC v. Dehua Wu, FA 1958528 (Forum Sept. 2, 2021) (finding <amirimall.shop> identical or confusingly similar to AMIRI); Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Renee Carr, D2011-0597 (WIPO June 3, 2011) (finding <dolcegabbanaclothingstore.com> confusingly similar to DOLCE & GABBANA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that displays Complainant's mark and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant, and that offers for sale what are alleged by Complainant to be counterfeit versions of its products (an allegation that has not been challenged by Respondent). Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., San Antonio Shoe, Inc. v. Sgfgc Ugh et al., supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Atelier Luxury Group, LLC v. Wei Peng, FA 1957663 (Forum Sept. 6, 2021) (same); Atelier Luxury Group, LLC v. Dehua Wu, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burdens of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark without authorization, and is using the domain name for a website that displays Complainant's mark and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant, and that offers for sale what are alleged to be counterfeit versions of Complainant's products. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., San Antonio Shoe, Inc. v. Sgfgc Ugh et al., supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Atelier Luxury Group, LLC v. Wei Peng, supra (same); Atelier Luxury Group, LLC v. Dehua Wu, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amiriclothingstore.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: June 17, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page