WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Giorgio Armani S.P.A. v. Name Redacted Case No. D2019-0107 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Giorgio Armani S.P.A. of Milan, Italy represented by Legalitax Studio Legale e Tributario, Italy.

The Respondent is Name Redacted1 . 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 January 18, 2019. On January 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 18, 2019, 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 January 21, 2019 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 January 24, 2019.

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 January 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent about commencement of panel appointment process on February 15, 2019.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2019. 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, founded in 1975, is one of the most famous fashion and lifestyle companies in the world. The Complainant designs, manufactures and distributes products and services in 36 countries. The Complainant is the proprietor of several trademarks such as ARMANI and GIORGIO ARMANI. For example, the Complainant has registered the trademark GIORGIO ARMANI as a European Union trademark on March 8, 1999. Both marks have been used extensively all over the world.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 26, 2017. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The trademark GIORGIO ARMANI is a well-known trademark around the world, which has also been confirmed by previous UDRP Panels.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark GIORGIO ARMANI in its entirety, combined to the merely descriptive and generic term “outlet”. The word “outlet” strengthens the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name as it gives the incorrect idea that the website is an official outlet of the Complainant, which it is not.

The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner. There is no evidence of bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name is merely commercial use.

The worldwide fame of the Complainant’s trademark means that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is used to direct Internet users to a website where clothes bearing the Complainant’s trademark are offered for sale. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a c