WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Stylight GmbH v. Zheng Zebiao Case No. D2018-1327 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Stylight GmbH of Munich, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.

The Respondent is Zheng Zebiao of Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 14, 2018. On June 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 14, 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.

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 June 21, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 11, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 12, 2018.

The Center appointed Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 following summary sets out the uncontested factual submissions made by the Complainant:

The Complainant was established in 2008 and provides an online platform, which inter alia offers fashion from over 100 online shops. The Complainant currently has an online presence in numerous countries worldwide, namely Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America (“US”).

The Complaint owns several trademarks for STYLIGHT, inter alia European Union Trademark Registration no. 007416051 STYLIGHT, registered on June 16, 2009, International Registration no. 1011334 STYLIGHT, registered on May 14, 2009, and US trademark registration no. 3910299 STYLIGHT, registered on January 25, 2011 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “STYLIGHT Mark”).

The Complainant provides its services online at several country related domain names, such as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and, last but not least, .

In addition, the Complainant owns numerous domain names related to its STYLIGHT Mark, including , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .

There have also been several UDRP decisions relating to the STYLIGHT Mark whereby the panels recognized the Complainant’s rights thereof. These include disputes involving the domain names , , , and .

The disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2018. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website that appears to market wallets and bags, particularly those of the Louis Vuitton brand.

The Respondent is the registered owner of numerous domain names. The Respondent’s domain name portfolio contains domain name registrations such as and . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has rights in the trademarks listed in section 4 above and has produced copies of the relevant registration records available online.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, which it says is highly distinctive. The Complainant further contends that the additional word “cheap” in the disputed domain name does not eliminate the similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. The Complainant attaches evidence in the form of a Google search for STYLIGHT which produces references only to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) should be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity to the trademark.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for a domain name incorporating its STYLIGHT Mark. The Complainant submits that these assertions constitute a prima facie case that places the burden upon the Respondent to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is an invented word and the Complainant has been in business since 2008 with over six million people using its various platforms. It contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was previously unaware of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent is offering products on sale which are directly competing with the Complainant’s business alleg