WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ShopStyle UK Limited v. Torsten Hertzog Case No. DEU2018-0025 1. The Parties

The Complainant is ShopStyle UK Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom” or “ÜK”), represented by Murgitroyd & Company, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Torsten Hertzog of Regis-Breitingen, Germany. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar

The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 8, 2018, the Registry 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 .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 24, 2018. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was October 5, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 10, 2018.

The Center appointed José Ignacio San Martín Santamaría as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a wholly-owned UK based subsidiary of ShopStyle, Inc., from the United States of America active in the online retail services connected with clothing, footwear and fashion accessories. The latter is the proprietor of the European Union Trademark Registration No. 006824395 for SHOPSTYLE (word mark) filed on April 10, 2008 and registered on January 21, 2009 for services in classes 35, 42, 45.

Since at least 2006 Complainant is promoting its services under SHOPSTYLE mark in UK and through European Union on its main website available at “”.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 11, 2018 and is currently active, linking to an online retail shop called “Impressions”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

- The Complainant enjoys significant and viable goodwill and reputation in its SHOPSTYLE mark through continued use in the UK and Europe over the past 12 years, primarily, although not exclusively, in relation to online retail services.

- The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SHOPSTYLE. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is substantially identical, or highly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark.

- There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests use in the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The disputed domain name links to an online retail shop called “Impressions”, but the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

- The adoption of the disputed domain name can only be to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation, and to misdirect web traffic to the Respondent’s website.

- The Respondent is “typosquatting”. This is a recognised for of cybersquatting and potentially brandjacking, which constitutes bad faith.

As a consequence, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent

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

According to ADR Rules, Paragrap