WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Valextra S.P.A. v. Crystal International Case No. D2018-1044 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Valextra S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Bugnion S. p. A, Italy.

The Respondent is Crystal International of Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone. Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 11, 2018. On May 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 14, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the language of the registration agreement is Korean and that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, and providing the registrant's contact details.

On May 17, 2018, the Center notified the Parties in both English and Korean that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Korean. On May 17, 2018, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding.

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 in English and Korean of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 24, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 13, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default in English and Korean on June 15, 2018.

The Center appointed Andrew J. Park as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 2018. 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. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Valextra.S.p.A. is an Italian company that was founded in 1937 by Giovanni Fontana in Milano, Italy. The Complainant specializes in leather products with distinctive shapes designed for the comfort of sophisticated and cosmopolitan clientele and its long history has become an internationally renowned Italian luxury brand. The Complainant's name is synonymous with a timeless style, innovative trends, exquisite craftsmanship and artisanal techniques of supreme quality. The Complainant also enjoys a vast notoriety in the Republic of Korea and its products are sold in 19 different department stores across the country.

The Complaint is based on the well-known trademark VALEXTRA, which is registered in several countries worldwide and, in particular:

- International Registration No. 817560 for VALEXTRA filed on November 28, 2013 in classes 14, 16, 18 and 25.
- International Registration No. 1257778 for VALEXTRA filed on September 19, 2014 in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35.
- International Registration No. 901444 for VALEXTRA filed on June 10, 2005 in classes 3, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 28, 34, 41 and 43.
- International Registration No. 1376258 for VALEXTRA filed on July 27, 2017 in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, and 35.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on July 11, 2016 with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR, and it resolves to a "website coming soon" webpage. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant because:

1) the disputed domain name is clearly identical to the Complainant's trademark. The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark is the addition of the gTLD suffix ".asia". However, it is standard practice to disregard the gTLD suffix under the confusing similarity test, except where the applicable gTLD suffix may itself form part of the relevant trademark, which is not the case here.

2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

i) according to a clearance search, there are no trademarks containing the world "valextra" in the name of the Respondent, Crystal International,
ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the word "valextra" in any derivation,
iii) the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the VALEXTRA trademark,
iv) the Complainant has prior rights in the VALEXTRA trademark which precede the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, and
v) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain.

3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's activities, trademark and reputation at the time it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant has substantially used its trademark in many countries, including the Republic of Korea, which is the country of origin of the Respondent, and the Complainant has several retail stores in the most prestigious shopping malls of South Korea. Consequently, it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Comp