WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Yu Jie Case No. D2010-0049 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Farouk Systems, Inc. of Houston, Texas, United States of America, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Yu Jie of Jiangsu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 12, 2010. On January 13, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 18, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 7, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 12, 2010.
The Center appointed Colin Yee Cheng Ong as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 2010. 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
4.1. The Complainant has been in the hair care business for nearly two decades and has claimed to manufacture and sell high quality professional hair care products in over 60 countries worldwide. The Complainant has claimed that it is now one of the recognized leaders in the beauty and hair care industry and that its marquis products include hair care products such as electric hair curling irons, electric hand held hair dryers, electric flat irons, electric hair straightening irons and electric hair styling irons, all of which are known as and sold under Complainant's trademark CHI. The Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to sell authentic CHI branded products and the Complainant does not sell its CHI branded products to the Respondent and believes that the Respondent is a counterfeit manufacturer of the Complainant's CHI branded products. The Complainant's official website for CHI branded products is located at “” and has been registered in December 14, 2006.
4.2. The Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 2,660,257 for the CHI trademark for use on hair curling irons which was issued on December 10, 2002 and United States Trademark Registration No. 3,107,769 for the CHI trademark for use on electric hand-held hair dryers, which was issued June 20, 2006. The Complainant has annexed to its Complaint a list of the trademarks, which include the following (all of which appear to be simple word marks):
- a copy of the certificate for United States Trademark Registration No. 2,660,257, together with printouts from the United States Patent and Trademark Office website regarding the assignment of this registration to the Complainant); and
- a copy of the certificate for United States Trademark Registration No. 3,107,769.
4.3. Although no evidence was provided to support its next claims, the Complainant has also contended that it is also the owner of several other United States federal trademark registrations and applications including United States Trademark Registration Number 2,660,257 for CHI for “electric hair curling irons;” and United States Trademark Registration No. 3,387,588 for the mark CHI NANO for various hair irons. The Complainant also claims to be the owner of numerous other trademark applications and registrations world-wide for the mark CHI, either alone or in combination with other terms or designs.
4.4. The Complainant has also claimed that it has been using the mark CHI on hair irons since at least as early as January 18, 2001; on electric hand-held hair dryers since at least as early as December 1, 2005; on hair care products since at least as early as December 4, 2000; and on hair coloring preparations since at least as early as November 29, 2004.
4.5. The Complainant also claims to be the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 3,426,769 for the mark CHI for hair coloring preparations, hair color lighteners, color lock treatments, color developers, and colors; United States Trademark Application Serial No. 76/512,597 for the mark CHI for hair care products, namely, shampoo, thermal hair protective treatment, hair strengthening treatment, hair conditioner; hair care preparations, including solutions which bond to the hair to strengthen the hair, and solutions to transform frizzy, curly, or damaged hair. In addition, the Complainant claims to be the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 3,331,008 for the mark ULTRA CHI for hair dryers; United States Trademark Application Serial No. 77/265,353 for the mark BIOCHI for electric hair curling irons, electric hair styling irons, electric hair straightening irons, and electric hair flat irons, among other goods; Indian Trademark Application No. 1378048 in International Classes 3, 9, and 11; Australian Registration No. 936956 for the mark CHI in International Classes 9 and 11; Canadian Registration No. TMA 700970 for the mark CHI; Chinese Registration No. 3396005 for the mark CHI in International Class 9; European Community Trademark Registration No. 4457594 for the mark CHI in International Classes 9 and 16; Hong Kong SAR of China Registration No. 301045269 for the mark CHI in International Class 9; and claims to have other applications and registrations for the mark CHI in these and other countries such as Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan Province of China, Turkey, Argentina, and Brazil. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights for the following reasons:
(i) As a result of the Complainant's use and registration of its mark CHI, the Complainant has established significant goodwill in its mark CHI through its extensive marketing and advertising efforts and the Complainant's mark CHI is widely-known for hair care products.
On or about September 29, 2009, the Respondent had registered the domain name which, at one time linked to a website that offered for sale hair care products branded with the Complainant's registered mark CHI. The Complainant has annexed documentary evidence to show that Respondent was using the Domain Name , which included the Complainant's United States marks CHI, to sell numerous hair care products displaying or bearing the Complainant's marks. However, the Respondent, however, is not authorized to sell or offer for sale Complainant's genuine hair care products.
As the Respondent is not authorized to sell the Complainant's CHI branded products, consumers are likely to be confused into believing that the Complainant is related to, a sponsor of, or connected to the sources of the products once offered by the Respondent. The Complainant also produced evidence showing that one of the Respondent's customers was actually confused as to the sponsorship, connection, and affiliation of the Domain Name with the Complainant.
(ii) That the Respondent has registered the domain name and that a portion of this domain name contains a term that is identical to Complainant's distinctive trademark, CHI, to which the Complainant has rights. The remainder of the domain name (“hair” and “sale”) is comprised only of generic words used to strengthen the appearance of a connection between CHI and the Respondent's website and, importantly, to create the false commercial impression that Respondent is the owner of the CHI mark and the goodwill associated therewith.
(iii) The Complainant submits that the Domain Name gives the appearance that the Respondent is the source of CHI-branded hair irons as well as the source of hair irons bearing the CHI mark. The Complainant emphasises that the Respondent has never had rights to the CHI mark or rights to sell or offer for sale any products bearing the CHI mark.
(iv) That customers who search the Internet for the Complainant using the Complainant's protected CHI mark may be directed to the disputed Domain Name and this would create a likelihood of confusion. The Respondent's website creates an immediate likelihood of confusion as to whether the Respondent is associated with, sponsored by, or otherwise connected to the Complainant when, in fact, the Respondent has absolutely no connection to the Complainant whatsoever. The Complainant cited previous decisions by other UDRP panels that have found confusing similarity when a domain name incorporates the complainant's well-known mark along with other identifying terms, or generic or slang terms. The Complainant has referred to Adela Comércio de Embalagens Artesanais Ltda v. Adrenalin Rush, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0392 as one such case example.
(v) The Complainant has also submitted that the public recognition and goodwill embodied in Complainant's CHI mark is threatened and eroded by the Respondent's use of the Domain Name. It has submitted that such usage dilutes the distinctive quality of Complainant's CHI mark.
(vi) The Complainant have further argued that the Respondent's addition of the generic terms “hair” and “sale” increase the likelihood of confusion because the generic terms “hair” and “sale” imply a direct connection to Complainant's protected CHI mark, which acts as a source identifier, or otherwise implies that Respondent, and not Complainant, is the owner and originator of the mark CHI, as well as all products bearing the mark CHI. The Complainant had relied upon the reasoning of Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. v. N,WIPO Case No. D2005-1107, which held that the addition of the generic terms “super” and “challenge” did not prevent confusion but may have increased the likelihood of confusion.
5.2 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for the following reasons:
(i) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name.
(ii) The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent and the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use the mark CHI, the Domain Name, or any other domain name.
(iii) The Complainant has not granted any license to Respondent nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to sell the Complainant's products or use Complainant's CHI mark in connection with the sale of any goods or services. The Respondent is not an authorized dealer or licensee of the Complainant's products or services and has no other permission to apply for any domain name incorporating the CHI trademark. The Complainant emphasises that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademarks, or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating said marks.
(iv) The Complainant makes the point that the Domain Name links to a website that includes the ability to purchase unauthorized versions of the Complainant's products and/or counterfeit reproductions of the Complainant's products, and that these details, reviews, and advice related to the Complainant's products, would confuse consumers as to the ownership of the CHI mark as well as to the source of products bearing the CHI mark.
(v) The Complainant has adduced evidence to show that the Respondent has used the Domain Name for commercial gain by diverting the Complainant's customers or potential customers. The Domain Name was registered on September 29, 2009 (years after the Complainant's United States use and registration of the CHI trademarks) and the Respondent specifically references the Complainant's products and marks in its website name but offers unauthorized and/or counterfeit versions of Complainant's products.
5.3 The Complainant, lastly, contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the following reasons:
(i) By using the Domain Name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's web site 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 the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location.
(ii) The inclusion of additional words in the Domain Name showed that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's registered marks and business, and supports a finding that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. Citing Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-1131.
(iii) The fact that the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name in 2009 took place years after the Complainant's United States use and registration of the CHI trademarks further evidences the Respondent's bad faith registration.
(iv) The Respondent had intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Its sale of unauthorized and/or counterfeit CHI branded products through the Domain Name to reap financial benefits shows bad faith.
(v) The Respondent's website intentionally creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark and the offering of the Complainant's products (and/or counterfeited products) for sale through the website to which the Domain Name resolves intentional bad faith conduct.
The Complainant requests the Panel to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. The Panel finds that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the Rules and the Policy. The procedural history of this case could have raised a question as to whether the Respondent has received notice of this proceeding. Having gone through the series of communications as set out above under the section on procedural history, the Panel concludes that the Center has employed all reasonably available means to notify the Respondent of this proceeding and has discharged its responsibility under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.
6.2 The Panel has reviewed the Complaint together with its annexes and, in the light of this material, the Panel finds as set out below.
6.3 This Panel does not find any exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(e) of the Rules so as to prevent this Panel from deciding the dispute based upon the Complaint.
6.4 Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (see, for example, PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Yan Shif,WIPO Case No. D2006-0700). Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.5 However, under paragraph 14 of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. Therefore, in a case where a respondent fails to submit a response, a panel may draw negative inferences from that respondent's default (see paragraph 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions).
Where the Respondent chooses not to present any such evidence to dispute the claims of the Complainant, an inference may be made that such evidence would not have been favorable to the Respondent, or that he accepts the factual claims of the Complainant, or even that he does not wish to respond or defend his perceived interest in the disputed domain name. (See Caterpillar Inc. v. Spiral Matrix/ Kentech, Inc./ Titan Net/ NOLDC, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2006-0808). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.6 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.
6.7 In line with such provision, the Complainant must prove two limbs, i.e. it enjoys the trademark right; and 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, for example, Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107).
6.8 The Complainant has provided proof as to its registered trademark rights in CHI. Given this, the Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the Domain Name is confusing similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the addition of the generic terms “hair” and “sale” increase the likelihood of confusion because the generic terms “hair” and “sale” imply a direct connection to the Complainant's protected “CHI” mark and does have an impact on the likelihood of confusion.
6.9 In the circumstances, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.10 At the heart of the Complaint is the Complainant's contention that the Respondent has taken the name of the Complainant with a view to attracting Internet users to its website, where it offers the same or similar services as those offered by the Complainant. The Panel accepts that such activity does not provide the Respondent with a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
6.11 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 Domain Name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances that shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for purposes of 4(a)(ii). 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, then the respondent is deemed to have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
6.12 As previously held by other WIPO UDRP 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)
6.13 Further, as another panel had held in the case of Owens Corning v. NA,WIPO Case No. D2007-1143, if a respondent wants to argue that it has a right of legitimate interest in a domain name, it is for the respondent to positively advance that case and to bring forward evidence in support.
6.14 The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types 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 Domain Name, or that the Respondent has made noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Respondent has also not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but has allegedly instead sold unauthorised or counterfeit products of the Complainant. 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 Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, and this showing has remained unrebutted by the Respondent.
6.15 Based on the present record, 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
6.16 The Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant's business and its use of the CHI mark. This is inherently probable, given the fact that the Respondent only registered the Domain Name in 2009 after the Complainant has had many years of registration and use of the CHI name, and in view of the subsequent use of the Domain Name.
6.17 Given this finding, the Panel also infers and accepts the Complainant's undisputed contention that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with a view to diverting Internet users with an interest in CHI hair products to its website for its own commercial gain.
6.18 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a list of examples of evidence of bad faith registration and use. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) refers to use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source of a website.
6.19 Given that the Respondent has failed to show (for the reasons set out under the heading of legitimate interests above) that it was using the Domain Name exclusively to deal in genuine CHI products and has also failed to disclose on the site the true relationship between it and the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent in this case did intentionally attract for commercial gain users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. The activities of the Respondent, therefore, fall within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
6.20 In the circumstances, the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Considering that the Complainant has established all three elements of the Policy, the Panel finds in favour of the Complainant. 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: March 12, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy