SESSUN v Tao Feng

WIPO Case No. D2023-1794

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SESSUN v. Tao Feng

Case No. D2023-1794

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SESSUN, France, represented by BBLM Avocats, France.

The Respondent is Tao Feng, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sessun-us.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2023. connection with the disputed domain name. On April 24, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 May 2, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 22, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 25, 2023.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 7, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a French company incorporated in 1996 and specialized in the manufacture of clothing, shoes, and accessories for women. The Complainant enjoys success in its field of activity (having a turnover of EUR 40,402,400.00 in 2021) and therefore it expanded its activity worldwide.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations containing the term SESSÙN, such as the following:

- the French trademark number 3064067, for the semi-figurative mark S SESSÙN, filed/registered on
November 13, 2000, covering goods in Nice classes 3, 18, and 25; and

- the European Union trademark number 014666994, for the word mark SESSÙN, filed on October 13,
2015, and registered on January 29, 2016, covering goods in Nice classes 20, 21, and 26.

The Complainant promotes its SESSÙN line of products on the website at the domain name <sessun.com>, which was registered on January 11, 2000.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2022. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to an online sales website reproducing the Complainant’s SESSÙN mark and displaying a range of women’s clothes, shoes and accessories which are counterfeiting products or at least products for which the resale has not been authorized.

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 is confusingly similar to its trademarks;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;

- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The
Complainant must satisfy that:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

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

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

page 3

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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark (without its accent on the “u”) is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

While the addition of other terms “-” and “us” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

Based on the available record, 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.

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.

Having reviewed the 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 Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made
demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the
disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i)
of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

- the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by
the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

- the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name,
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or
service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

- the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in
the disputed domain name.

page 4

- Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods
or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a
respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.

Although panels are generally not prepared to accept merely conclusory or wholly unsupported allegations of illegal activity, including counterfeiting, the Panel is of the view based on the evidence introduced by the Complainant, that in this case, the disputed domain name redirects to a website offering “SESSUN” branded products with a very high discount, supporting the Complainant’s claim that the products are counterfeit or at least unauthorized.

Based on the available record, 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.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- the Complainant holds registered trademark rights for SESSÙN and corresponding domain name
since 2000, as well as company name since 1996 while the Respondent registered the disputed
domain name on July 8, 2022.

- the disputed domain name is reproducing the marks SESSÙN in their entirety with the addition of the
two letters “us” pretending to be a branch of the Complainant in the United States of America.

- the Complainant has offered evidence that the disputed domain name redirects to an online sales
website offering unauthorized or counterfeiting “SESSUN” branded products with a very high discount.

- the photographs presenting the products on the website accessible through the disputed domain
name are the exact copies of the photographs extracted from the Complainant’s website.

- the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the Respondent’s website or location or of a
product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

- Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods
or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
3.4.

In the present case, the Panel further notes that the Respondent made a blatant copy of the Complainant’s website.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

page 5

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 <sessun-us.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: June 26, 2023