WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Farouk Systems, Inc. v. QYM Case No. D2009-1572 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. JYY Case No. D2009-1573 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. XR Case No. D2009-1584 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. LQ Case No. D2009-1586 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. HYQ Case No. D2009-1620 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. YY Case No. D2009-1623 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. ZC Case No. D2009-1624 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. JR Case No. D2009-1635 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. ZYJ Case No. D2009-1639 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. FT Case No. D2009-1640 Farouk Systems, Inc. v. LMW Case No. D2009-1658 1. The Parties
The Complainant in each of these proceedings is Farouk Systems, Inc. of Houston, Texas, United States of America, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP of United States of America.
The Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1572 is QYM, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1573 is JYY, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1584 is XR, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1586 is LQ, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1620 is HYQ, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1623 is YY, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1624 is ZC, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1635 is JR, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1639 is ZYJ, the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1640 is FT, and the Respondent inWIPO Case No. D2009-1658 is LMW.
All of these Respondents share the same identical address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address. The common address for the Respondent in each of these proceedings is Hubei, Wuhanshi, Hubeisheng, People's Republic of China, and the common e-mail address is [wangmin4522ok]@. Also, the Panel notes that the domain names contain similar descriptive terms such as “factor”, “outlet” and “sale”, also the domain names either do not presently resolve to an active page or contain apparently similar messages in Chinese. Finally, the Panel notes that the domain names were all registered within weeks of each other in the fall of 2009. It would appear therefore in the circumstances that the Respondent in respect of each of these proceedings is the same person, notwithstanding the use of different initials in respect of the owner's registration details for the disputed domain names.
The Panel has therefore determined that it is appropriate for each of these proceedings to be consolidated and for a single Decision to be handed down. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names are as follows: WIPO Case No. D2009-1572
, , , and ; WIPO Case No. D2009-1573
, and ; WIPO Case No. D2009-1584
and ; WIPO Case No. D2009-1586
, and ; WIPO Case No. D2009-1620
, , and ; WIPO Case No. D2009-1623
; WIPO Case No. D2009-1624
; WIPO Case No. D2009-1635
; WIPO Case No. D2009-1639
; WIPO Case No. D2009-1640
; and WIPO Case No. D2009-1658
and .
All of the disputed domain names are registered with the same Registrar, Xin Net Technology Corporation. 3. Procedural History
The Complaints were filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 24, 2009, November 24, 2009, November 24, 2009, November 24, 2009, December 1, 2009, December 1, 2009, December 1, 2009, December 4, 2009, December 3, 2009, December 4, 2009 and December 4, 2009, respectively.
On November 24, 2009, November 25, 2009, November 25, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 2, 2009, December 2, 2009, December 2, 2009, December 4, 2009, December 4, 2009, December 4, 2009 and December 7, 2009, respectively, the Center transmitted by email to Xin Net Technology Corporation requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names.
On December 2, 2009, November 27 2009, December 3, 2009, December 1, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 8, 2009, December 8, 2009 and December 10, 2009, respectively, Xin Net Technology Corporation transmitted by email to the Center its verification responses confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent's contact details for each of the disputed domain names.
In response to notifications from the Center that the Complaints in Case Nos. D2009-1572, D2009-1573, D2009-1584 and D2009-1620 were administratively deficient, the Complainant filed amendments to these four Complaints on December 2, 2009, November 30, 2009, December 3, 2009 and December 7, 2009, respectively.
On December 2, 2009, November 30, 2009, December 3, 2009, December 1, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 8, 2009, December 8, 2009, December 9, 2009 and December 10, 2009, respectively, the Center transmitted emails to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of each of the proceedings. On December 2, 2009, November 30, 2009, December 3, 2009 December 1, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 8, 2009, December 8, 2009, December 10, 2009 and December 10, 2009, respectively, the Complainant submitted requests that English be the language of each of the proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceedings by the due dates.
The Center has verified that the Complaints together with the amendments to the Complaints satisfy 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaints, and the proceedings commenced, on December 10, 2009, December 7, 2009, December 11, 2009, December 9, 2009, December 15, 2009, December 15, 2009, December 15, 2009, December 16, 2009, December 16, 2009, December 17, 2009 and December 18, 2009, respectively. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due dates for the Responses were December 30, 2009, December 27, 2009, December 31, 2009, December 29, 2009, January 4, 2010, January 4, 2010, January 4, 2010, January 5, 2010, January 5, 2010, January 6, 2010 and January 7, 2010, respectively. The Respondent did not submit Responses in respect of any of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the Respondent's default on January 5, 2010, December 28, 2009, January 4, 2010, December 30, 2009, January 5, 2010, January 5, 2010, January 5, 2010, January 6, 2010, January 8, 2010, January 7, 2010 and January 8, 2010, respectively.
The Center appointed Sebastian Hughes as the sole panelist in respect of each of these proceedings on January 11, 2010, January 6, 2010, January 11, 2010, January 6, 2010, January 12, 2010, January 12, 2010, January 6, 2010, January 14, 2010, January 14, 2010, January 15, 2010 and January 14, 2010, respectively. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted Statements of Acceptance and Declarations of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background A. The Complainant
The Complainant is a United States (“U.S.”) company and the owner of registrations for trade marks comprising the word CHI in the United States of America and in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including in People's Republic of China, where the Respondent is based (“the Trade Marks”). B. The Respondent
The Respondent is an individual apparently with an address in People's Republic of China.
The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:
, , , and were registered on September 17, 2009;
, and were registered on September 17, 2009;
and were registered on September 7, 2009;
was registered on September 7, 2009 and and were registered on September 17, 2009;
, , and were registered on September 17, 2009;
was registered on August 31, 2009;
was registered on August 31, 2009;
was registered on August 31, 2009;
was registered on August 31, 2009;
was registered on September 7, 2009; and
and were registered on September 7, 2009. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The following facts are alleged by the Complainant in the Complaints and have not been disputed by the Respondent.
The Complainant manufactures and sells high quality professional hair care products which are sold under the Trade Marks in over 60 countries worldwide.
(1) The Disputed Domain Names are Confusingly Similar to the Complainant's Marks
The Complainant began using and registered the Trade Marks long before the disputed domain names were registered.
The Respondent has not been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to register the disputed domain names or to sell or distribute products branded with, or by reference to, the Trade Marks.
The generic terms comprised in the disputed domain names such as “outlet”, “factory”, “shop”, “store”, “sale” and “irons”, and the United States of America designation “usa”, do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trade Marks.
(2) The Registrant has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Disputed Domain Names
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent and has never authorised the Respondent to use the Trade Marks or to register the disputed domain names. The Complainant has not authorised or licensed the Respondent to sell the Complainant's products or use the Trade Marks in connection with the sale of any goods or services.
Most of the websites to which the disputed domain names are linked (“the Websites”) offer for sale unauthorised versions of the Complainant's products and/or counterfeit reproductions of the Complainant's products. Others offer for sale hair care products under different brands unrelated to the Complainant.
The Respondent has not used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the Trade Marks.
(3) The Respondent Registered and is Using the Disputed Domain Names in Bad Faith
By using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trade Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Websites.
The inclusion of additional words or terms in the disputed domain names that further identify the Complainant supports a finding that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.
The Respondent's use of the Websites to sell unauthorised and/or counterfeit versions of the Complainant's goods is indicative of registration in bad faith.
The Respondent must have had actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the Trade Marks as the disputed domain names were registered years after the Complainant's first use and registration of the Trade Marks. B. The Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceedings
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented in the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be English.
Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin,WIPO Case No. D2006-0593).
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceedings for the following reasons:
(1) The Respondent is using the English language to promote and sell its unauthorised and/or counterfeit products on the Websites. Thus, on a daily basis, the Respondent voluntarily conducts business in the English language;
(2) The Respondent advertises and accepts US dollars as the currency for payment of its unauthorised and/or counterfeit products; and
(3) The Respondent's “Conditions of Use” used on the Websites state that any disputes regarding the Websites and any activities or transactions occurring on the Websites will be resolved by arbitration in the State of Victoria, Australia. The predominant language in Australia is English;
(4) The Respondent's “Conditions of Use” used on the Websites state that the law that applies to the Websites and any activities or transactions occurring on the Websites shall be the law of the State of Victoria, Australia;
(5) All of the unauthorised and/or counterfeit products advertised by the Respondents on the Websites use “US” plugs.
The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceedings and did not object to the use of English as the language of the proceedings.
Xin Net Technology Corporation has sent to the Center verification responses confirming that the language of the Registration Agreements for each of the disputed domain names is Chinese.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties' ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng,WIPO Case No. D2006-0432).
The Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language (Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng,WIPO Case No. D2006-0432).
In view of the above, it is not foreseeable that the Respondent will be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceedings.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceedings. 6.2 Decision
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(1) The domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
Each of the disputed domain names comprises the CHI trade mark in its entirety. WIPO panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of the disputed domain name, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. DHL Packers,WIPO Case No. D2008-1694).
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to the disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253); furthermore, mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does not exclude the likelihood of confusion (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix,WIPO Case No. D2006-0189).
The addition of the generic terms “outlet”, “factory”, “shop”, “usa”, “sale”, “store”, “us” and “irons” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names in any way. In the present circumstances, these generic terms should be disregarded in determining the question of confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that the designation CHI is the distinctive part of the disputed domain names and the additional generic terms do not diminish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Trade Marks.
Similarly, the use of hyphens in some of the disputed domain names does not serve to distinguish the disputed domains name in any way. The hyphens used in some of the disputed domain names should be disregarded in determining the question of confusing similarity.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domains names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, and holds that the Complaints fulfill the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Marks. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Marks which precede the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names by over 9 years. The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and thereby shifted the burden to the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (Do The Hustle, LLC v.Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names are used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant has asserted that the Websites are used by the Respondent to market unauthorised, counterfeit goods. There can be no legitimate interest in the sale of counterfeits (Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles,WIPO Case No. D2004-0750).
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names to rebut the Complainant's prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaints fulfill the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following conduct amounts to registration and use in bad faith on the part of the Respondent:
“By using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
The Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain names have a connection with the Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Websites.
The Complainant has asserted that the Websites offer for sale unauthorised and/or counterfeit goods under the Trade Marks and this assertion has not been rebutted by the Respondent. This is strong evidence of bad faith. (Prada S.A. v. Domains for Life,WIPO Case No. D2004-1019).
As at the date of this decision, the following of the disputed domain names continue to be resolved to websites offering for sale hair care products under the Trade Mark:
, , , , , , , , , , , , and .
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv).
At some stage after receipt of the Complaints, the Respondent changed the Websites to which some of the disputed domains were resolved from websites offering for sale unauthorised or counterfeit products under the Trade Marks, to inactive websites. The Panel finds this conduct provides further evidence of bad faith.
As at the date of this decision, the following of the disputed domain names are resolved to inactive websites:
, , , , , , , , , , and .
It has been established in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Action S.A. v. Robert Gozdowski,WIPO Case No. D2008-0028). The Panel finds that this amounts to additional grounds for finding bad faith on the part of the Respondent. It appears the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct in registering domain names comprising the Trade Marks in order to set up infringing websites offering for sale counterfeit goods. Notwithstanding the use of different initials under “owner name”, it would appear that the Respondent in respect of each of these proceedings is the same person.
The failure of the Respondent to respond to any of the Complaints in this case further supports an inference of bad faith (Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787).
Finally, by supplying initials instead of the full name of the Respondent and the full name of the Respondent organisation in respect of the registration details for each of the disputed domain names, the Respondent has provided false or incomplete contact information in registering the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that this constitutes further evidence of bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the following disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .
Sebastian Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 19, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy