WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v. Whois Agent. Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Nadav Simhoni Case No. D2018-1611 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. of Arteixo, A Coruña, Spain, represented internally.

The Respondents are Whois Agent. Domain Protection Services, Inc. of Denver, United States of America ("United States") and Nadav Simhoni of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 17, 2018. On July 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 19, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 20, 2018 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 amended Complaint on July 23, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 16, 2018.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on August 22, 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 in the fashion retail business. It is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations (Annex 4 to the Complaint):

- United States Trademark registration No. 1629592 for ZARA, in class 42, registered on December 25, 1990,

- United States Trademark registration No. 2392637 for ZARA, in class 25, registered on October 10, 2000,

- United States Trademark registration No. 4030529 for ZARA, in classes 14, 16, 20, 21 and 35, registered on September 27, 2011.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2016. While the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, it appears to have been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts to be one of the world's largest fashion retailers, owning, managing or franchising 7,475 stores in 96 markets around the world. It is the parent group of more than 100 companies operating in the textile design, manufacturing, production and distribution all over the world. One of these companies is its whole-owned subsidiary Zara USA, Inc., of 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400, 10110, NY, NY.

According to the Complainant, the ZARA trademark was first used in 1975 and since then has been actively promoted, having reached the status of a global well-known trademark, what can be evidenced by having ranked the 24th position in the prestigious Interbrand Global Brands Inform of 2017, being worth USD 18,573 m.

Under the Complainant's view, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of its well-known trademark with the addition of the generic term "franchise", which in the context of the fraudulent activities carried out by the Respondent only enhances the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its franchise structure.

Also according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been used to create email addresses "[…]@" which were used to send emails misleading recipients into believing that the emails came from the Complainant where in fact they did not (Annexes 8 and 9 to the Complaint), and what constitutes a clear violation of the Complainant's trademark rights.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given that:

(i) the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant for fraudulent purposes and to target the Complainant's prospective franchisees and third parties under false pretenses does not characterize a legitimate use or a bona fide offering of goods and services,

(ii) the Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to represent it, nor has he been authorized to register the disputed domain name or develop any activity under the ZARA trademark,

(iii) there is no evidence that the Respondent is the holder of any trademark or any registered name that may legitimate him to register and use the disputed domain name,

(iv) given the overwhelming renown and popularity of the ZARA trademark worldwide it is not conceivable that the Respondent could possibly establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (as in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

The Complainant contends, as to the bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name that it arises from the fact that the disputed domain name has been used