page 1WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISIONHong Kong Trade Development Council v. Ting, TiffanyCase No. D2001-00981. The PartiesThe Complainant is Hong Kong Trade Development Council, a statutory bodyincorporated in Hong Kong, having a registered office at 38/F, Office Tower, ConventionPlaza, 1 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong SAR of P. R. China. The Respondent is a physical person Ting, Tiffany with the contacting address at 5/F., No.7, Lane 235, Pao-Chaio Road, Shin-Tine, Taipei 231, Taiwan.2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe domain name in dispute is [ (BQ--3CGL65T4PWZA.COM)], which isregistered with the registrar Network Solutions, Inc. of 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon,VA 20170, USA.3. Procedural HistoryOn January 20, 2001, The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") receiveda communication from the Respondent.The Center received the Complaint of the Complainant on February 5, 2001 by email andthe amended Complaint by email on February 27, 2001 and in hard copy on March 2, 2001. On February 27, 2001, the Center forwarded the communication from the Respondent tothe Complainant. The Center sent to the Registrar a request for verification of registration data on February 27, 2001. On March 6 and 8, 2001, the Registrar confirmed that the domainname in dispute is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and the Respondent is thecurrent registrant of the domain name. The disputed domain name registration status is“active”.page 2The Center completed the formal Requirements Compliance Checklist on March 8, 2001.On March 9, 2001, The Center received the supplemental Filing from the Complainant byemail.On March 13, 2001, the Center sent to the Respondent the Notification of Complaint andCommencement of the Administrative Proceeding. This notification was sent by themethods required under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. The formal date of thecommencement of this administrative proceeding is March 13, 2001.On April 5, 2001, the Center sent to the Respondent Notification of Respondent’s Default.On April 20, 2001, after receiving a completed and signed Statement of Acceptance andDeclaration of Impartiality and Independence, the Center notified the parties of theappointment of a single-member panel consisting of Mr. Li Yong and informed the partiesthat a decision would be issued by May 3, 2001 absent exceptional circumstances. 4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant is a statutory body incorporated in Hong Kong SAR China since 1966under the Hong Kong Trade Development Council Ordinance (Annex 3 of the Complaint),and its main function is to promote, assist and develop Hong Kong’s overseas trade, withparticular reference to exports.The Complainant owns trademark rights for “貿發網” in class 38 in Hong Kong SAR. Thetrademark registration in Hong Kong was made in December of 1999. The Complainantreceived a letter from a law firm of Hong Kong named Deacons on October 27, 2000 inwhich the Complainant was informed that the trademark “tdctrade.com” in Chinesecharacters“貿發網” had been accepted by the trademark Registrar and was going to beadvertised for opposition purposes(Annex 3 of the Complaint). The Complainant also owns trademark rights for “貿發網” in classes 35, 38 and 42 in TaiWan. The trademark registration in Tai Wan was made in March of 2000.All the trademark registrations and applications above-mentioned were made in the nameof Hong Kong Trade Development Council.The domain name [ (BQ--3CGL65T4PWZA.COM)] was created onNovember 24, 2000, according to the search result made by the complainant shown in theAnnex 1 of the Complaint.5. Parties’ ContentionsThe Complainant contends that Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC) is astatutory body incorporated in Hong Kong since 1966 with its mission to create andfacilitate opportunities in international trade for Hong Kong companies. Developed byHKTDC, is a resourceful web site specialized in trade. This web sitepage 3provides HKTDC’s comprehensive range of business information and services, whichinclude market intelligence, trade contacts, product catalogues and trade fairs information.The disputed domain name is the official Chinese name for and the nameitself has been trademarked. The Complainant believes that the domain name is a unique service and reflects theidentity, functions and services offered by HKTDC. Other organization, which hasregistered the Chinese domain name of , would project a wrong impressionthat they are the Council or represent the Council, both of which are not true. As such, the Complainant contends that they have good reasons to believe that the currentholder of the disputed domain name has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to thedomain name.The Complainant requests the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the contesteddomain name be transferred to the Complainant.The Respondent failed to submit formal Response according to 5 (a) of the Rules forUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, but a Mr. Leslie Liu, calling himselfthe representative of the Respondent, sent an email letter to the Center on January 20, 2001. In the letter, Mr. Leslie Liu made the statements as follows:The Respondent is one of the shareholders of the TradeFind.com company in Tai Wan,which is the online B2B marketplace for exchanging trade information and businessbuying and selling products. The company was formed in May 1999 and its headquarteredin Tai Pei, Tai Wan. TradeFind.com’s mission is to provide an Internet world of businessvalue, opportunities, transaction and places where buyers and sellers click every day. Afterfounding from May 1999, the English and Chinese version has been successfully operatedand announced by the name of and , which is exactly the sameChinese characters as the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and FindingsIn accordance with the Policy, the Complainant asking for transfer of the domain namemust prove the following three elements: 1) Respondent's domain name is identical orconfusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 2)Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and 3) Respondenthas registered the domain name and is using it in bad faith. (ICANN Policy, 4 (a)). Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe domain name at issue is [ (BQ--3CGL65T4PWZA.COM)]. The Panelfinds that the Chinese character of this domain name “貿發網” is completely identical withthe registered trademarks held by the Complainant both in Hong Kong and Tai Wan. ThePanel also finds that the Chinese character of the disputed domain name is identical to theChinese name of developed by the Complainant. The top level domaindesignator ".com" is only a necessary portion to form a business-related domain name andcannot function to distinguish that name from the Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore,the Panel believes that the first element of the ICANN Policy, 4(a) is met.page 4Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain NameThe Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in theICANN Policy, 4(c). There exists no evidence that the Respondent, before receipt of anynotice of the dispute, has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domainname in connection with bona fide; or that the Respondent has been commonly known bythe domain name; or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair useof the domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided evidence of any othercircumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. TheRespondent did not present any evidence to show that the Respondent is one of theshareholders of the TradeFind.com company and he can represent this company, thoughMr. Leslie Liu so stated in his email letter dated January 20, 2001 to the Center. As such,the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of thedisputed Domain Name.Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the ICANN Policy specifies four types of circumstances that could beevidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. According to theICANN Policy, circumstances of bad faith are not limited to the listed ones.The Panel finds that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith according to theICCAN Policy 4 (b) (ii). The panel is of the view that the domain name at issue wasregistered in order to prevent the owner of the trademark “貿發網” from reflecting themark in a corresponding domain name.First, the Complainant states and the Respondent does not dispute that HKTDC, theComplainant, have developed a web site called which is a resourceful website specialized in trade and provides HKTDC’s comprehensive range of businessinformation and services including market intelligence, trade contacts, product cataloguesand trade fairs information.Second, the panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that the disputed domain name isthe official Chinese name for , a web site which has been developed andused by the Complainant. The lawyer’s letter of October 27, 2000 to the Complainant(Annex 3 of the Complaint) clearly indicates that the Complainant’s trademark “貿發網”is in Chinese characters”.Third, the official Chinese name of the Complainant is “香港貿易發展局”. It is thepanel’s knowledge that because the name is rather long, as Chinese custom, theComplainant is often called “貿發局”in short in China. The disputed domain name strongly implicates that the web site using this name is the business internetsite (網) of “貿發局”. In sense of Chinese, the disputed domain name hardly has othermeaning. The domain name at issue is obviously connected with the Complainant and itsservices. The Panel can not see any justified reasons for the Respondent to choose thewording to make his domain name registration at the time after theComplainant’s trademark “貿發網”was advertised for opposition.Forth, the Complainant’s trademark “貿發網”implicates the meaning of “the business webpage 5site owned by “貿發局””. By common knowledge, using the Chinese wording “貿發網”as the second level of a domain name can be a very direct, exact and preferred way toreflect the Complainant’s identity, functions and services offered by the Complainant. TheRespondent’s conduct of acquiring and holding the domain name [ (BQ--3CGL65T4PWZA.COM)] has prevented the Complainant from reflecting its trademark ina corresponding Chinese domain name.Finally, Mr. Leslie Liu states that the Respondent is one of the shareholder of theTradeFind.com company incorporated in Tai Wan. Because there is no evidence showingthe connection between the Respondent and the company, the matter concerning theTradeFind.com company is not within the examining scope of the Panel. Taking consideration of the combination of the reasons above-mentioned, the Panel findsthat the Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name at issue is in bad faith.7. DecisionThe Panel concludes (a) that the domain name [ (BQ--3CGL65T4PWZA.COM)]is identical to the trademark owned by the Complainant, (b) thatthe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and (c) that theRespondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panelorders that the domain name [(BQ--3CGL65T4PWZA.COM)] betransferred to the Complainant.______________________Li YongSole PanelistDated: May 3, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy