WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

DHL Operations B.V. v. Shen Zhen YtExp Ltd.

Case D2007-1180

1. The Parties

The Complainant is DHL Operations B.V., of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, is represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas Jonas Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne Germany.

The Respondent is Shen Zhen YtExp Ltd, Shenzhen Baoan, Shenzhen Guangdong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebN.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) by way of email on August 8, 2007 and received in hardcopy by the Center on August 10, 2007. On August 13, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Web Commerce Communications Limited a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On August 14, 2007, Web Commerce Communications Limited transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 30, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 19, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 21, 2007.

The Center appointed Dr. Colin Yee Cheng Ong as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 2007. 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.

The language of the registration agreement has been confirmed by the registrar as English, and accordingly the language of proceedings shall be English.

4. Factual Background

The Panel has studied the Complainant’s submissions and indices containing various attached coloured and black and white printouts from various websites showing use of the Complainant’s trading name “DHL Operations B.V.” and “DHL”; as well as the Complainant’s letters relating to the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant is the sole legal holder of numerous trademarks worldwide which consist in the designation “DHL” or contain this designation as a significant component. The Complainant has since 1996 registered a series of trademarks of DHL in Germany, the European Community, the United States of America and other countries including China.

Complainant’s affiliates own various domain names including the mark DHL such as, “”; “”; “” as well as of its Global website available under “” and also “” as the official web presence of the Complainant for China.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that:

The DHL brand is the global market leader in international express, overland transport, air freight and is also the world’s number one in ocean freight and contract logistics. The Complainant’s core business is international transportation of documents and goods. The Complainant claims that in nearly every country of the world, it has a business location as shown on the internet page “”. It transports and delivers millions of mailings and parcels throughout the world and is widely recognized by the public due to its omnipresence created by its thousands of yellow trucks and air-planes with the sign “DHL”.

The Complainant also claims that in China, it operates various business locations as shown on the Complainant’s official Chinese internet presence available under “”. It produced several related printouts from the Chinese internet pages.

The Complainant contends that it is indisputable that the Complainant is and has been the owner of the DHL- trademarks and has been well-known within Germany, Europe, China and internationally as the owner of these marks for years. Further, it relies upon the UDPR case DHL Operations B.V. v. Ali Kazempour,WIPO Case No. D2004-1094 - , wherein that WIPO panel stated that “the “DHL” marks are notorious all over the world”.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel finds that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the Uniform Rules and the Policy. Having gone through the series of communications as set out above under the section on procedural history, the Panel concludes that the Center has notified the Respondent of this proceeding and has discharged its responsibility under paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules. The Panel finds that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the Uniform Rules and the Policy. According to Paragraph 14(a) of the Uniform Rules, where there is a failure by the respondent to provide a response to the allegations of the complainant, as in the present case, the Panel is directed to make a decision on the administrative proceedings on the basis of the complaint and in accordance with Paragraph 14(b), the Panel shall “draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate”.

The Respondent has been accorded with the opportunity to provide submissions and evidence to dispute the claims of the Complainant. If the Respondent chooses not to present any such evidence, an inference may be made that such evidence would not have been favorable to the Respondent, or that he accepts the factual claims of the Complainant, or even that he does not wish to respond or defend his perceived interest in the disputed domain name. In such case of silence by the Respondent, the Complainant shall then continue with his case and shall have to prove the three elements that are required by the Policy without opposition than the Complainant’s own ability to explain them. (See: Caterpillar Inc. v. Spiral Matrix/ Kentech, Inc WIPO Cas