Chopard International SA v. Sam yang et al.

Claim Number: FA1703001719895






Complainant: Chopard International SA of Prangins, Switzerland.

Complainant Representative: Safebrands S.A.S. of Marseille, France.


Respondent: Sam Yang of Guang Zhou, China.


Product trade of Guang Zhou, China.


Sam yang of Guang Zhou, GD, International, CN.



Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited

Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.



The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.


David L. Kreider, as Examiner.



Complainant submitted: March 3, 2017

Commencement: March 3, 2017     

Response Date: March 15, 2017


Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").



Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.



Clear and convincing evidence.




The Examiner speaks fluently and reads Chinese as a second language, in addition to his native English.


Founded in 1860, CHOPARD belongs to a small number of luxury brands that offer a complete collection of watches and jewellery around the globe, including China. Since over 150 years, CHOPARD has become one of the leading names in the high-class watch and jewellery industry.


Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide that consist of or contain the mark CHOPARD, including International trademark registration n°624432, registered on August 15, 1994 and enjoys a widespread

reputation worldwide. The said trademark is registered as well at the TMCH since May 07, 2013.


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


The disputed domain name is identical to the above-cited trademark consisting of the main and distinctive sign CHOPARD.


Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating CHOPARD trademark. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name



Insofar as the contested domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, Respondent has evidenced no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as he is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the

domain name, nor is he using the litigious domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.


The Complainant sent several e-mails to the Respondent in order to resolve this matter amicably. Respondent has never provided Complainant with any evidence of its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, his domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute.


Complainant’s trademark CHOPARD was registered with the TMCH on 7 May 2013.  Accordingly, the Respondent received a trademark claim informing the latter that the domain matched a registered trademark and knew of the existence of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on 18 May 2016.  This is compelling evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.


The Response, written in both Chinese and English, alleges variously that the Respondent intended to use the disputed domain name for a website to introduce unspecified “lawful” Chinese branded merchandise of a different class than those classes for which Complainant’s trademark is registered, although no actual use or preparation for use is alleged or shown.  In email correspondence with Complainant’s legal representatives, the Respondent asserted that the Complainant’s registered trademark CHOPARD, when Romanized and written in Chinese “pin yin” script, is pronounced in the same way as the surname of the composer Frédéric François Chopin (肖邦), and thus, Respondent alleged, “belongs to the entire world”.  The Examiner finds that Respondent’s unsubstantiated allegations are without merit.


The disputed domain includes the Complainant’s widely known and widely used

registered trademark CHOPARD, registered many years before the disputed domain name registration, which is a factor evidencing Respondent’s bad faith.




After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that

the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following



domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.






David L. Kreider, Examiner

Dated:  March 15, 2017




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page