No Ordinary Designer Label Limited t/a Ted Baker v Manlidy, GNN

WIPO Case No. D2023-0917

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
No Ordinary Designer Label Limited t/a Ted Baker v. Manlidy, GNN

Case No. D2023-0917

1. The Parties

The Complainant is No Ordinary Designer Label Limited t/a Ted Baker, United States of America (“United

States”), represented by Authentic Brands Group, United States.

The Respondent is Manlidy, GNN, Singapore.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <besttedbaker.com> is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2023.
On March 2, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2023, 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 (John Doe) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 7, 2023, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 7, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 March 8, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was March 28, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2023.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark TED BAKER, which has been used for over 35 years. The Complainant is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of apparel, accessories, footwear, homeware and beauty products. The Complainant’s trademark has been registered in many countries, such as in the

United States under trademark registration no. 2644551 with registration date October 29, 2002.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 2, 2023, and resolves to a website offering goods under the Complainant’s trademark TED BAKER.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with the merely descriptive term “best”. This does not prevent a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark and has not acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the Complainant’s trademark by the Respondent. The Respondent has been actively using the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and the related website to offer counterfeit goods under the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s trademark is well-known around the world. There is also a considerable gap of 60 years when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and the Complainant established registered rights in its trademark.

The Respondent is trying to pass off the disputed domain name as the Complainant’s website to sell competing and unauthorized goods. The Respondent has no reason to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name other than to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint or not. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

page 3

Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.

According to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[t]he applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’,
‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first
element confusing similarity test”.

Furthermore, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

This means that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing
indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the
burden of proof shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests.
If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the
Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2000-0270; and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant

page 4

who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable
consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain

name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has]

engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or
competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”

Considering that the Complainant has been using and registering its trademark for several decades before the disputed domain name was registered and taking into account the activity to which the disputed domain name has been put, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when

registering the disputed domain name. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The disputed domain name resolves to websites offering competing and unauthorized products under the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion

with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the products on the Respondent’s website.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled.

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, <besttedbaker.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tuukka Airaksinen/
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 18, 2023