The Complainants are Vente-P of La Plaine Saint Denis, France (the “First Complainant”) and Vente-P IP S.à.r.l. of Luxembourg (the “Second Complainant”), both represented by Cabinet Degret, France.
The Respondent is Linzongxing of Putian, Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names are and and both are registered with 22net, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2016. On March 31, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 1, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
On April 5, 2016, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On April 5, 2016, the Respondent requested that Chinese be the language of the proceeding. On April 7, 2016, the Complainants reiterated their request that English be the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that 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 in both Chinese and English, and the proceeding commenced on April 13, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any formal response besides a short email on April 13, 2016. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties that it would proceed with panel appointment on May 4, 2016.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 18, 2016. 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 Complainants submitted additional observations in an email communication dated May 19, 2016 in response to the Respondent’s email of April 13, 2016. These observations referred to an email from the Respondent to the Complainants dated April 1, 2016 in Chinese and English sent in response to the filing of the Complaint, which was later appended to the Complainants’ language request of April 7, 2016. 4. Factual Background
The Complainants are part of the same corporate group; the Second Complainant is in fact a wholly-owned subsidiary of the First Complainant. The Complainants operate the “vente-privee” shopping club website which organizes event sales of all kinds of discounted products and services bearing well-known trademarks. The website is operated from the domain names and but the Complainants have registered very similar domain names containing a typographical error, such as , and that redirect to the club. The shopping club has over 30 million members while every month several million unique Internet users visit the Complainants’ website.
The Complainants between them have registered trademarks consisting of VENTE-PRIVEE.COM in a logo and VENTE-PRIVEE and logo. The First Complainant has registered trademarks consisting of VENTE-PRIVEE.COM in a logo, namely French trademark registration no. 04/3.318.310, registered in 2004 and modified in 2005, and Community trademark registration no. 005413018, registered in 2007. The First Complainant has also registered a trademark consisting of VENTE-PRIVEE and logo, namely Community trademark registration no. 011991965, registered in 2014. The Second Complainant owns trademarks consisting of VENTE-PRIVEE and logo, including United States of America trademark registration no. 4263242, registered in 2012, and International trademark registration no. 1116436, registered in 2012 and valid in multiple jurisdictions. These registrations specify services such as advertising, retail and/or telecommunications services, and the first registration also specifies a wide range of goods in multiple classes. These trademark registrations are all still in effect.
The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain names, which were both created on April 22, 2015. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that consists of hyperlinks to e-commerce websites, selling clothes as well as other goods and services. The disputed domain name has variously redirected to a webpage warning that the user’s computer may be infected by a virus and asking the user to contact a call center, a page displaying a “Googel” (sic) logo advising users that they have been chosen to win a gift but ultimately seeking their personal details, a page presented as a press article offering a smartphone for one euro that has been denounced as a ploy to obtain users’ bank details, and a page consisting of hyperlinks to e-commerce websites. The sites to which the pages redirect are in English and other languages. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants submit that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to their prior trademarks. The disputed domain names are almost identical to the verbal part of the trademarks which constitutes their essential and dominant element given its size, and the fact that it is the only part of them that is pronounced. There is only one letter of difference between each disputed domain name and the Complainants’ VENTE-PRIVEE.COM trademarks, and these differences correlate to common typing errors likely to be made by Internet users when entering the Complainants’ domain names in a browser (“typosquatting”).
The Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not known by either of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are put to commercial use: they both display advertising links to the Complainants’ competitors; the “www.” website links to a webpage explaining how the services enable users to generate income; and the “www.vent-p” website redirects to fraudulent webpages designed to harvest users’ personal and banking details. The Respondent wants to profit from the traffic generated by Internet users who mistakenly type the disputed domain names when they actually want to reach the Complainants’ website, which is not illegitimate and unfair. The Respondent has no intention to make a bona fide use of the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainants’ trademarks are well known at the international level and the typing errors that they contain reveal an intention to typosquat the Complainants’ trademarks. The Respondent was previously also the registrant of the domain name which also typosquatted the Complainants’ trademarks. The webpages accessed through the advertising links sometimes display the Complainant’s trademarks while others link to the Complainants’ competitors’ websites and show that the Respondent is familiar with the Complainants’ business. Typosquatting itself can be an indication of bad faith registration. The Respondent did not respond to cease-and-desist emails and did not provide complete and accurate contact information in the Registration Agreements, which are further signs of bad faith. The disputed domain names have been registered in order to prevent the Complainants from registering domain names extremely close to their trademarks, and the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The use of the disputed domain names disturbs the Complainants’ business. By using the disputed domain names, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users on websites belonging to him, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a formal Response to the Complainants’ contentions. However, in an email dated April 13, 2016 the Respondent asserted that the Complaint was clearly a case of barefaced cybersquatting of his property. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative pr
