WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Saipem S.p.A. v. Zhou Xiang Jin Case No. D2010-0631 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Saipem S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Studio Legale Tonucci, Italy.
The Respondent is Zhou Xiang Jin of Changzhou, the People's Republic of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba . 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2010. On April 21, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2010, Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On April 23, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of proceedings. On the same day, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date. 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 April 29, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 19, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 20, 2010.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 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
The Complainant is in the oil and gas contracting services industry. The Complainant's mark SAIPEM has been registered and used in many countries for 40 years.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 5, 2007. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SAIPEM, the registration and use of which by the Complainant long precedes the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceeding
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name , as confirmed by the concerned Registrar, is Chinese. The Complainant requests that the language of proceeding be English through presenting its difficulty to take part in the proceeding in the language of the registration agreement and indirectly proving that the Respondent has sufficient capacity to present its case in English. The Respondent did not make any submissions in relation to the language of proceeding even though the Center's communications to this effect were both in English and in Chinese.
According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of 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.
Given that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case as prescribed in the Rules, paragraph 10(b), but the Respondent did not dispute adopting English the language of proceeding, the Panel determines under the Rules, paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of proceeding. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), 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 requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark rights and the similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark.
The Panel finds that before the registration of the disputed domain name the Complainant's trademark SAIPEM had been registered and used in a number of countries.
The disputed domain name is . Apart from the generic top-level domain suffix “.mobi”, the disputed domain name consists of “saipem”, which is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark SAIPEM. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any right or legitimate interest it may have in the disputed domain name.
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can be taken to demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of a Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel's findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is passively holding the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name has not been put to use by the Respondent. In accordance with previous decisions issued under the Policy (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003), the lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The Panel, in deciding whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith, takes into account the following circumstances of the case:
a) It is proved by the Complainant and not disputed by the Respondent that the Complainant's mark SAIPEM has established considerable reputation in oil and gas industry in China as well as other parts of the world.
b) The Respondent did not submit any Response against the Complainant's contention that the Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name that is identical to the Complainant's reputable mark SAIPEM.
c) There is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business.
d) It is not possible to conceive any good faith use of the disputed domain name that was opportunistically registered by the Respondent.
Based on the above-mentioned circumstances, the Panel finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Therefore, the Complainant has successfully proven the third element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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 disputed domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 14, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy