WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0280 for bonoboactuel.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION MAGELLAN v. Ma Ya Hong Case No. D2019-0280 1. The Parties
The Complainant is MAGELLAN of Saint Malo, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Ma Ya Hong of Qingyang, Gansu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 5, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 11, 2019, 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 February 12, 2019 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 amended Complaint on February 15, 2019.
February 12, 2019, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on the same day. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint amended 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 12, 2019.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 15, 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 is a French company that sells men and women’s fashion under the trademark BONOBO. The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations including French trademark registration number 3127913 for BONOBO in a particular script, registered from October 25, 2001 and specifying footwear and clothing in class 25; French trademark registration number 3437302 for BONOBO, registered from June 27, 2006, and specifying footwear, clothing and other goods in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 24 and 25; and International trademark registration number 1051866 for BONOBO and device (the “Bonobo logo”), registered on July 20, 2010 and specifying footwear, clothing and other goods in classes 14, 18 and 25. The Complainant has also registered the domain name that it uses in connection with an official online store where it sells its clothing, footwear and accessories.
The Respondent is an individual resident in China. She registered the disputed domain name on October 29, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website in French that is an online store, which prominently displays the Complainant’s Bonobo logo and has a look and feel very similar to the Complainant’s official online store. The website offers for sale what are alleged to be the Complainant’s clothing and footwear at heavily discounted prices. Prices are displayed in euro. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BONOBO trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the BONOBO trademark as its dominant part. The adjunction of the French word “actuel” meaning “modern” or “current” gives consumers the idea that the website offers the Complainant’s current collection.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the BONOBO trademark or to register any domain name incorporating that trademark. The Respondent has no licence from the Complainant to use the BONOBO trademark. The website offers for sale clothing that is presented as discounted clothing under the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is a servile copy of the Complainant’s official website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 proceeding”. The Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Chinese.
The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. Its main arguments are that the disputed domain name is in Latin characters, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is in French, and translation of the Complaint into Chinese would cause significant expense and delay.
Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules req