WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
DHL Operations B.V. v. Zhang Kody/ shen
Case D2007-1234
1. The Parties
The Complainant is DHL Operations B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands and is represented by Jonas Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, Germany.
The Respondent is Zhang Kody/ shen, Shenzhen Guangdong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with HiChina Web Solutions Limited.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) by way of email on August 21, 2007 and received in hardcopy by the Center on August 23, 2007. On August 23, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to HiChina Web Solutions Limited a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On August 24, 2007, HiChina Web Solutions Limited transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 31, 2007. 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 31, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 20, 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 decision due date was extended to October 21, 2007.
The Complainant has filed its Complaint in English and made a request in the Complaint that the language of the proceeding be English. The registration agreement is in Chinese. The Respondent has been notified of the Complaint and its contents in both Chinese and English. The Respondent did not respond to the Center’s Chinese request to indicate that it would experience language difficulties if English were to be the language of the proceeding. Furthermore, the Respondent has not filed a Response. The Panel therefore decides that the language of this administrative proceeding is English and that the decision of the Panel will be rendered in English.
4. Factual Background
The Panel has studied the Complainant’s submissions and indices containing various attached printouts from various web sites 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 for DHL in Germany, European Community, the United States of America and other countries, including China.
The Complainant’s affiliates own various domain names including the mark DHL such as, ; ; as well as the web sites “” and “”, the latter being the official web site of the Complainant in China. The Respondent does not appear to use the domain name as the address of an active web site.
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 also operates various business locations as shown on the Complainant’s official Chinese Internet presence available under “”. It produced several related printouts of 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 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 Rules. The Panel finds that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the Rules and the Policy. According to paragraph 14 (a) of the 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) of the Rules, 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 claims of the Complainant, or even that he does not wish to respond or defend his perceived interest in the trademark. 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. (See: Caterpillar Inc. v. Spiral Matrix/ Kentech, Inc,/Titan Net/NOLDC, Inc, WIPO Case No.D2006-0808).
The Panel should not decide in the complainant’s favor solely because of the reason of the Respondent’s default (See: Oxygen Media Corporation v. Spiral Matrix,WIPO Case No. D2006-0521). Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements of its case:
(i) The Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, this Panel must “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
In line with such provision, the Complainant must prove two limbs – that it enjoys the trademark right; and that the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark.
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors, usually considered in trademark infringement (See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has been successful in proving these two aspects. First, the Complainant has shown that it does enjoy trademark rights over the trademark DHL through both its extensive trademark registrations in many countries as well as extensive usage via the Internet, which is reachable from any country. Secondly, the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark DHL is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark DHL.
The Complainant asserted that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is a mere combination of the Complainant’s famous trademark/company name DHL and that the country code “cn” for “China” is a descriptive geographical indication. The Complainant contends that the last part of the domain name which is “dhl” is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark and company name DHL. Further it asserts that the dominant part and distinctive element of the domain name is the Complainant’s famous trademark and that the addition of the element “cn” does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark/ company name.
The Complainant contends that the addition of the official country code does not avoid confusion, as the Complainant also has well-established trademark rights in China and that the public will not interpret “cn” as anything but the geographical abbreviation for China. The mere addition of a geographical term cannot preclude a finding of confusing similarity has already been accepted in several WIPO UDRP decisions and has cited the earlier WIPO decision of October 4, 2000, AltaVista Company v. S.M.A., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0927.
As many of the national trademark registries have issued trademark registrations to the Complainant, the mark is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. As the Respondent has submitted no evidence on this point, the Panel has to respect the trademark as inherently distinctive.
The Panel thus finds that the domain name is identical to the DHL mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. However, it is the prevailing consensus view among Panelists that where a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and the respondent fails to show one of the three circumstances under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or any other enidence of rights or legitimate interests, then the respondent may lack a legitimate interest in the domain name.
As previously held by other WIPO Panels, “rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant”. (See eBay Inc. v. Akram Mehmood, WIPO Case No. DAE2007-0001)
The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent has made a non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) is also satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of what constitutes bad faith registration and use.
Registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a famous trademark by any entity, which has no relationship to that mark, may be sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use (See Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v. West Coast Consulting, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-1319).
In addition, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent using the contact information listed in Whois and received no response. Finally, the Respondent also failed to respond to the Complaint in this matter. Accordingly, under these facts and circumstances, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith and that also the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Colin Yee Cheng Ong
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 21, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy