Jacquemus SAS v Deborah Deacon

WIPO Case No. D2024-0510

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Jacquemus SAS v. Deborah Deacon

Case No. D2024-0510

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jacquemus SAS, France, represented by DBK Law Firm, France.

The Respondent is Deborah Deacon, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jacquemusdeals.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2024. 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 February 12, 2024.
On February 5, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the Domain Name. On February 6, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its
verification response disclosing the registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed

from the named Respondent (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the

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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2024.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2024. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is French company that manufactures and markets clothing and fashion accessories since
2013 under the trademark JACQUEMUS, named after its designer, Simon PORTE JACQUEMUS.

JACQUEMUS products are now sold in 50 different countries around the world.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks in the world, such as French trademark No. 4057016
(registered on December 24, 2013) and International trademark No. 1211398 (registered on February 5,

2014).

The Complainant owns domain names reflecting its trademark, such as <jacquemus.com> (registered in
2010) and <jacquemus.fr> (registered in 2014).

The Domain Name was registered on October 11, 2023. The Complainant has documented that the Domain Name directed to a website offering for sale wigs and hair products. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to the same webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and contends that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as the Domain Name reproduces the entire trademark.

The additional term “deals” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain goods or services.

Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not been granted any authorization to use the

The Complainant believes that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is well-known. It appears that the Domain Name is used to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the

Respondent’s website. The Respondent’s concealment of identity is further indication of bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions,
Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark JACQUEMUS. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of “deals”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. When assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level

Domain (“gTLD”); see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
page 3

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate rights
or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While 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 often impossible 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. 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.

Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of 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. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is evidence of bad faith, see below. Finally, the Panel
finds that the composition of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

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 Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name. It follows from
the composition of the Domain Name, and the fame of the Complainant. The Respondent’s use of the
Domain Name, see above, is evidence of bad faith. The Respondent has not offered any explanation to why
it registered the Domain Name, nor provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the

Domain Name. It is implausible that the Respondent may put the Domain Name into any good faith use.

Based on the available record, 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 the Domain Name <jacquemusdeals.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mathias Lilleengen/
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2024