WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Jeanne Lanvin v. Tammi Lopez Case No. D2019-0608 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jeanne Lanvin of Paris, France, represented by Hoche Societé Avocats, France.

The Respondent is Tammi Lopez of Camden, New Jersey, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2019. On March 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 20, 2019, 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 March 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2019.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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

Founded in 1885 in Paris, the Complainant is one of the oldest French fashion houses still in activity. After opening her first workshop as a milliner in 1885, Jeanne Lanvin went on to becoming a fully-fledged couturier when she opened a ladies and girls clothes department in her store. The name LANVIN has been continuously used as a commercial name and brand in connection with its products since 1885. The Complainant now has a global presence and the brand LANVIN is a registered trade mark in many jurisdictions all over the world. The earliest trade mark submitted in evidence dates back to 1953 in the United States (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant’s official website and online shop is found at “” since June 8, 1996.

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on February 26, 2019. It is made up of a combination of the words “lanvin” and “en ligne” which means “online” in French. The Domain Name resolves to a website which has the name LANVIN displayed prominently on the home page and appears to sell counterfeit LANVIN products (the “Website”). The products offered for sale are at a heavily discounted price. Photographs of LANVIN products of the Fall/Winter 2019 Collection are also displayed on the Website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. B. Respondent

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

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and

(iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark.

The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trade mark to assess whether the mark is