DECISION

 

Comme Des Garcons Co., Ltd. v. Manzoor Ahmad

Claim Number: FA2602002206172

 

PARTIES

Comme Des Garcons Co., Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Alexa Sussmane of McCue Sussmane Zapfel & Cohen P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Manzoor Ahmad ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <comme-des-garcon.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

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

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 20, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <comme-des-garcon.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@comme-des-garcon.com.

 

Also on February 23, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 18, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

The Complaint is brought in the name of Comme Des Garcons Limited of New York, USA, and Comme Des Garcons Company Limited of Japan.

 

There may be a relationship between the two corporations, however there is no explanation or evidence of that relationship in the Complaint or in the record.

 

The evidence is that Comme Des Garcons Company Limited of Japan is the owner of the trademark rights in the COMME DES GARCONS mark.

 

There is nothing the Complaint or the record to establish that the corporation Comme Des Garcons Limited of New York, USA has any rights in the COMME DES GARCONS mark.

 

The Panel finds that because there is no evidence that Comme Des Garcons Limited of New York, USA has any standing in this proceeding, the title of this proceeding will be amended to state that Comme Des Garcons Company Limited of Japan is Respondent.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the trademark COMME DES GARCONS established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark as a world-renowned fashion brand and have spent considerable sums developing, registering, and maintaining their intellectual property.

 

In an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has exhibited a screen capture of its website at "www.comme-des-garcons.com" which is in the Japanese and English languages illustrating its fashion offerings.

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is almost identical, and confusingly similar to Complainant's COMME DES GARCONS mark. The only difference is that in the disputed domain name the letter "s" is absent at the end of the element "GARCONS".

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is intentionally confusing to consumers and it tarnishes and dilutes Complainant's trademarks and brand name.

 

Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that:

·       Respondent is not known by the domain name;

·       Respondent is intentionally deceiving consumers into believing the domain name and the webpage is associated with and/or otherwise endorsed by Complainant;

·       the only purpose for Respondent's registration of the domain name is to deceive the public into buying counterfeit goods, which constitutes willful infringement of, tarnishes and dilutes Complainant's COMME DES GARCON mark;

·       as shown in a screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name and the webpage to which it resolves are not used by Respondent in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services;

·       Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial gain to mislead, divert and defraud Complainants' customers and to tarnish the COMME DES GARCONS trademarks and brand, and such use does not in any way constitute a fair use under applicable trademark law.

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that:

Respondent registered "comme-des-garcon.com" while Complainant's official website is "comme-des-garcons.com".

 

The exhibited screen capture shows that Respondent put the real address of Complainants' store in New York on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves: 520 W 22nd St, New York, NY 10011 is the address of Complainant's New York City store and is intended to confuse customers into believing Respondent's website is the official website of Complainants.

 

Complainant asserts that there is also a second New York City address on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, but this is the address of another well-known fashion brand.

 

Complainant argues that the only purpose for Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is to deceive the public. Such use constitutes willful infringement and is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest. Respondent's use of the domain name also tarnishes and dilutes the COMME DES GARCONS trademarks and brand.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is in direct contravention with the Registrar's Acceptable Use Policy and Domain Registration Agreement, a copy of which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant submits that there is also no clear way for customers to contact the store as would be the case with the legitimate sale of goods.

 

There were two phone numbers listed on Respondent's website. Complainant attempted to call the phone numbers twice on February 16, each but was met with busy signals. While the support email address appears to be active, there is no obvious recourse if the site does not answer complaint emails received.

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent is intentionally deceiving consumers into believing the disputed domain name and the webpage are associated with and/or otherwise endorsed by Complainants.

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit goods bearing Complainants' trademarks and to defraud Complainants' customers. Respondent is taking orders from customers believing that the disputed domain name belongs to Complainant.

 

Furthermore, Complainant alleges that Respondent's intent to misrepresent itself as the Complainant is shown its website, a screen capture of which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint by confusing consumers using a website address "www.comme-des-garcon.com" which is one letter off of Complainants' official website at "www.comme-des-garcons.com".

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a manufacturer of clothing, shoes, cosmetics, fragrances and other products under the COMME DES GARCONS mark, and is the registered owner of an international portfolio of trademark registrations including:

·       United States trademark registration COMME DES GARCONS (star design) registration number 1292275, registered on the Principal Register on August 28, 1984, for goods in international class 18;

·       United States trademark registration COMME DES GARCONS (star design) registration number 1941624, registered on the Principal Register on December 12, 1995, for goods in international class 3;

·       United States trademark registration COMME DES GARCONS (star design) registration number 5140234, registered on the Principal Register on February 14, 2017, for goods in international class 20.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website at "www.comme-des-garcons.com".

 

The disputed domain name <comme-des-garcon.com> was registered on March 16, 2023, and resolves to a website purporting to offer Complainant's COMME DES GARCONS branded apparel at very large discounts.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence that rights in the COMME DES GARCONS mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks described above, and use of the mark marketing its fashion garments website at "www.comme-des-garcons.com".

 

The disputed domain name <comme-des-garcon.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, except for the omission of the final letter in the element "garcon", and the TLD extension <.com>.

 

Complainant's mark is recognizable as the only element in the disputed domain name. The omission of the letter "s", changing the word "garcons" from plural to singular in the disputed domain name does not take from the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark.

 

In the circumstances of this case the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as it would be considered by Internet users to be a technical necessity for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <comme-des-garcon.com> is confusingly similar to the COMME DES GARCONS mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular Complainant has made out an uncontested case that the disputed domain name resolves to a website on which Respondent purports to have a physical address in New York City which is in fact the address of Complainant's retail store. This is strong evidence that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to carry on a bona fide business.

 

Also the content of the website purports to offer apparel bearing Complainant's COMME DES GARCONS brand at very large discounts which supports Complainant's argument that Respondent is either maintaining a fraudulent website and the apparel offered by Respondent is counterfeit.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

COMME DES GARCONS is a very distinctive mark which was registered on August 28, 1984, long before the registration of the almost identical disputed domain name was registered on March 16, 2023.

 

The disputed domain name is also almost identical to Complainant's own domain name; and the website to which the disputed domain name resolves at "www.comme-des-garcon.com" has only one letter different from Complainants' official website at "www.comme-des-garcons.com".

 

Furthermore, in uncontested submissions Complainant has exhibited a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, the physical address in New York City provided by Respondent for its business is in fact the address of Complainant's own New York City store.

 

Having considered the record, including the Complaint, the Panel finds

on the balance of probabilities the registrant of the disputed domain name was actually aware of Complaint, its brand, mark and reputation when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered; and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant and its COMME DES GARCONS in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant, its mark, goodwill, and reputation. 

 

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in an act of typosquatting purporting to create confusion among Internet users by it being almost identical to Complainant's COMME DES GARCONS mark.

 

It is well established that typosquatting in itself is indicative of both registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

 

The evidence further shows that, on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Respondent is using the disputed domain name purporting to sell apparel prominently bearing Complainant's trademark at hugely discounted prices. For example, one sweatshirt is offered for sale at $130.00 reduced from $450.00.

 

Offering goods at unrealistic prices is indicative that the goods are counterfeit, or that the website does not genuinely offer goods.

 

Since Respondent has no connection with Complainant or its mark, this Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's website. Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As the Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <comme-des-garcon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

_____________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated:  March 18, 2026