(i)the Respondent registered the Domain Name without regard to the Complainant’srights in the name PATEK;(ii)the Respondent agreed to the terms and conditions of the registration agreementwhich refers to the UDRP and the Respondent would have known that, byregistering a well-known trade mark, it was risking the commencement of legal proceedings; and(iii)the Respondent must be aware of his infringing activities as it has receivedcorrespondence from the Complainant’s representatives (this being a letter datedSeptember 4, 2009) regarding the Domain Name.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6.Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 14 of the Rules provides, amongst other matters, that if a party does notcomply with a provision of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it thinksfit.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that theDomain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark inwhich the Complainant has rights.From the screen shots of the Complainant’s website annexed to the Complaint, it can beseen that the Complainant has been manufacturing watches for about 165 years. Thescreen shots indicate that the Complainant appears to use the trade name Patek Philipperather than Patek alone. Although the evidence adduced by the Complainant couldhave been considerably more detailed in this respect, the Panel is satisfied that theComplainant has rights in the PATEK mark. Whilst its trading style appears to bePatek Philippe, the Complainant has an International registration for PATEK dating back to 1958 and has a website at “www.patek.com”. Therefore, the Complainant hasdemonstrated its trademark rights in PATEK and this requirement of the UDRP issatisfied.The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to theComplainant’s trade mark for PATEK as the word “watches” is merely descriptive of the principal form of goods sold by the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must show that theRespondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimateinterests in respect of the Domain Name. In particular, it is accepted that, in theabsence of any evidence to the contrary, the Respondent is not known as PATEK andhas not registered a trade mark in the United States of America (where it is based) for PATEK (annex 9 to the Complaint). The Respondent is also not cited in the list of the