WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Pierre Balmain S.A.S. v. Xian Wei Fa Case No. D2018-1167 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pierre Balmain S.A.S. of Paris, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Xian Wei Fa of Hezhou, Guangxi, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 25, 2018. On May 25, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 2018, 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. In response to a request for clarification from the Center, the Complainant filed a first Amended Complaint on May 31, 2018.

On May 30, 2018, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed a second Amended Complaint on May 31, 2018, in which it requested that English be the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the Amended Complaints 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 Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 26, 2018.

The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on July 4, 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 is a French haute couture fashion house founded in 1945. The Complainant has store locations in over 40 countries worldwide, and offers a large array of its products online through its main domain and its other domain names. In the Respondent’s home jurisdiction, China, the Complainant’s products are sold at brick-and-mortar stores in three major cities: Beijing, Hangzhou and Shanghai.

The Complainant owns a large number of trademark registrations (word and device marks) for BALMAIN in various jurisdictions, including in China, see for instance Chinese trademark number 1130322, registered on November 28, 1997, and United Sates of America trademark number 0702312, registered on August 2, 1960. The Complainant also owns an official domain name, , registered on March 17, 1997, through which it provides online sales services and marketing materials. All relevant registered trademarks and domain names adduced by the Complainant were successfully registered prior to the registration date of the disputed domain name, which was registered on November 10, 2016.

The Complainant also provides evidence that it has sought to settle this matter amicably through a cease-and-desist letter, to which it received no answer. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior trademarks for BALMAIN, that the Respondent has no 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.

The Complainant claims that its trademarks are famous and well-regarded in the fashion industry, and provides evidence of marketing materials, sales figures, website analytics regarding its main website etc. The Complainant also provides a number of prior domain name decisions involving the Respondent, as well as reverse WhoIs results showing a number of the Respondent’s other domain name registrations, allegedly exposing a pattern of cybersquatting.

The Complainant also provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active website (through a link to ), selling competing products using the Complainant’s trademarks, without any reference to a license, distribution agreement or other