WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Hunter Boot Limited v. Lena Fishman Case No. DAU2018-0025 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Hunter Boot Limited of South Queensferry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (“UK”) represented by DLA Piper Australia, Australia.

The Respondent is Lena Fishman of St Kilda, Victoria, Australia, self‑represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with NetRegistryPty Ltd. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to NetRegistryPty Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 17, 2018, NetRegistryPty Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 28, 2018 to correct an administrative formality.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 28, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 17, 2018. No formal Response was received by the due date. On September 18, 2018, the Respondent sent an email to the Center requesting an extension of time in which to file a Response. The Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment on September 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 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.

The Panel has considered the contents of the Respondent’s email communication of September 18, 2018, and refers to it later in this decision. 4. Factual Background

Established in 1856, the Complainant is a manufacturer of footwear, clothing and accessories. Its products, which include Wellington Boots, trainers, loafers, sliders, boot socks, raincoats, jackets, bags and umbrellas, are sold in approximately 53 countries.

The Complainant owns a large number of trademark registrations, in a range of countries, that consist of or incorporate the word “hunter”, including UK Trademark Registration No. UK00001263495 for the word trademark HUNTER (registered from March 26, 1986) and Chinese Trademark Registration No. 9257107 (registered from March 25, 2011) for the word trademark HUNTER BOOTS.

The Complainant operates its official website at “”, at which consumers can view images of, obtain information about, and make purchases of, its products. The Complainant expends significant sums per annum on advertising, marketing and promotional materials to promote its trademarks in connection with its product range.

According to the registrar verification, the disputed domain name was created (i.e., first registered) on May 24, 2013. No evidence has been provided as to who was the registrant of the disputed domain name at the date of its creation. According to the registrar verification, the disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent on July 4, 2018.

The Respondent is a sole trader who has traded under the registered business name “The Detail Australia” since October 12, 2013. On September 25, 2015, the Complainant and the Respondent entered into a Distribution Agreement, whereby the Complainant appointed the Respondent as the exclusive distributor of the Complaint’s products in Australia and New Zealand. The Distribution Agreement came into effect on January 1, 2016. It provided that, upon termination of the Agreement, the Respondent would (among other things): (i) cease using the Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) not thereafter use or register any words or marks that incorporate, are substantially similar or closely resemble the Complainant’s trademarks so as to be likely to cause confusion, and (iii) provide the Complainant with a comprehensive list of unsold stock. The Distribution Agreement was terminated by the Complainant with effect from June 22, 2017.

The Complainant provided screenshots of the website at “” showing that on various dates between July 2017 and April 2018 the disputed domain name resolved to a website at which the Complainant’s products were offered for sale using the Complainant’s HUNTER trademark. On June 9 and 10, 2018, the Complainant received emails from a customer who had ordered products from the website resolving from the disputed domain name. The customer was dissatisfied with those products, and queried the authenticity of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to the Respondent on July 2, 2018, seeking (among other things) that the Respondent would procure a transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On July 9, 2018, the Responden