Piaget, the Swiss luxury brand renowned for its high-end watches and jewellery, faced a domain name dispute involving the protection of its trademark. The conflict centered on two domain names, piagetwatch(dot)com and piagetwatches(dot)com, which were deemed confusingly similar to the Piaget trademark.
The Complaint
Richemont, the Swiss luxury group behind Piaget, alleged that the domain names registered by Turvill Consultants were not only confusingly similar to its trademark but also lacked any legitimate use. With Piaget holding trademark registrations in Switzerland, the United States, and Canada dating back decades, Richemont argued that these domains infringed upon its exclusive rights, leveraging the brand’s well-established reputation in luxury watches and jewellery.
Both domains led to pay-per-click sites displaying advertisements for competing products and potentially counterfeit goods. Richemont claimed this constituted bad-faith registration, aimed at profiting from the Piaget brand’s global prestige.
No Response, No Defense
The Respondent, Turvill Consultants, chose silence over defense, leaving the panel to evaluate the evidence solely presented by the Complainant.
Findings by the Panel
The case was reviewed by Anders Janson, the sole panelist, under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The process adhered to the UDRP and WIPO’s supplemental rules.
The panel, after reviewing the case, found that domains were;
1. Confusing Similarity
Richemont proved ownership of the Piaget trademark, and the domains were found to incorporate the brand’s name along with descriptive terms like “watch” and “watches.” The panel ruled that this combination was likely to confuse consumers, especially since Piaget is synonymous with high-end watches. This met the first requirement under the UDRP for proving confusing similarity.
2. Lack of Rights or Legitimate Interests
The panel agreed with Richemont that Turvill Consultants had no rights or legitimate interests in the domains. There was no connection to the Piaget brand, and the domains were used to host ads for competitors, including counterfeit goods. This use was not considered legitimate under the UDRP.
3. Bad Faith Registration and Use
The panel found that the Respondent acted in bad faith. Given the widespread recognition of the Piaget brand, it was unlikely that the domains were registered without knowledge of the trademark. The use of the domains to redirect traffic to competitor websites demonstrated a clear intention to exploit Piaget’s reputation for financial gain, meeting the UDRP’s bad-faith standard.
Final Decision
On July 22, 2014, the Panel ruled in favour of Richemont. The domains piagetwatch(dot)com and piagetwatches(dot)com were ordered to be transferred to Richemont.
Conclusion
The digital age presents evolving challenges to intellectual property protection, especially for luxury brands that depend on exclusivity and authenticity. This case emphasizes the need for constant vigilance in addressing domain name disputes. Opportunists continue to exploit well-known trademarks online, often relying on brand owners’ inaction or resource limitations to escape accountability.
As cybersquatters refine their methods, brands must act decisively and pursue legal action to safeguard their rights. Richemont’s success in reclaiming these domains sets a strong precedent, but the fight against digital trademark infringement remains ongoing.
Source:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2014/d2014-0862.html
Leave a Reply