Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2018-2910 of Tribunal Arbitral de la OMPI, February 11, 2019 (case Mou Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC / Vicky Rogers)

Defense:Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC / Vicky Rogers
Resolution Date:February 11, 2019
Issuing Organization:Tribunal Arbitral de la OMPI
Dominio:Generic Domains



WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Mou Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC / Vicky Rogers

Case No. D2018-2910

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mou Limited of London, United Kingdom, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC ( of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America (the “United States”) / Vicky Rogers of Staffordshire, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name [] is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2018. On December 21, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 24, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 28, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 3, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 23, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 24, 2019.

The Center appointed Antony Gold as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2019. 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 Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant was founded in 2002 and designs and sells fashion footwear together with accessories, such as wallets, hats and gloves, for men, women and children. Its products are stocked in boutiques and department stores in numerous countries as well as being sold, via the Complainant’s website at “”, by the Complainant’s authorized licensee. The Complainant has received widespread press coverage as well as celebrity endorsements from, amongst others, Cameron Diaz and Gwyneth Paltrow.

The Complainant trades as MOU. It has registered many trade marks to protect its trading style including, by way of example only, United States of America trade mark registration number 3663689 for MOU in classes 18 and 25, registered on August 4, 2009. The Complainant also owns a number of domain name registrations, including [] and []. It is active on social media, where it actively promotes its MOU brand.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 9, 2017. It resolves to a website which purports to be a review website of the Complainant’s products. A section of the website entitled “here-is-what-you-need-to-know-about-mou-boots” provides outline information about the Complainant’s products. The website content has previously contained several links to a third party website, which offered for sale MOU-branded products which were described as being those of the Complainant but which, the Complainant asserts, were actually counterfeit.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant says that the disputed...

To continue reading