The Complainant is Beachbody, LLC of Santa Monica, California, United States of America, represented by Cozen O'Connor, United States of America.
The Respondent is Lin Chen a/k/a/ Lin Qing of Putian, Fujian Province, the People’s Republic of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with B, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 13, 2010. On December 14, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to B, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 15, 2010, B, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On December 15, 2010, the Center transmitted an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date. On December 15, 2010, the Center sent an email communication to the Complainant regarding the Registrar information. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 15, 2010.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 December 22, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 11, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 12, 2011.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2011. 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in California, United States of America and the owner of an international registration and several registrations in the United States of America for the trade mark P90X (the “Trade Mark”). B. Respondent
The Respondent is an individual apparently with an address in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant made the following submissions in the Complaint.
The Complainant has been a leader in the field of in home health, wellness, weight loss and fitness solutions since 1998. The Complainant’s well-known DVDs, kits and other products branded under the Trade Mark have achieved great success since their introduction in 2003. The Complainant has engaged in widespread promotion of its DVDs, kits and other products sold under the Trade Mark via the Internet, infomercials and televised promotional appearances.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It comprises the Trade Mark together with the non distinctive words “cheap” and “dvd”.
The website to which the disputed domain name is resolved (the “Website”) offers for sale unauthorised counterfeit products under the Trade Mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to intentionally attract users, for commercial gain, to the Website, by creating confusion with the Trade Mark. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the 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. No agreement has been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding 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 proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) the evidence filed by the Complainant shows that the Respondent is familiar with English;
(2) the disputed domain name is used to sell counterfeit products to an English-speaking market, which includes counterfeit product packaging and documentation solely in English;
(3) the content of the Website is entirely in English; and
(4) the disputed domain name is an English language domain name.
The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding and did not object to the use of English as the language of the proceeding.
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 sufficient 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, supra).
In view of the above, it is not foreseeable that the Respondent will be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceeding. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate by several years the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
UDRP 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 also established that the addition of generic terms to a 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 generally not exclude the confusing similarity (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix,WIPO Case No. D2006-0189).
The disputed domain name contains the Trade Mark in its entirety.
In the present case, the Panel concludes that the use of hyphens and the addition of the non distinctive words “cheap” and “dvd”, words frequently used in retailing and marketing of branded goods, do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark in any way. The disputed domain name reads “cheap p90X dvd” which clearly portrays the meaning of the Complainant’s P90X dvds being offered for sale at a cheap price.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. 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 organisation) have been commonly known by the domain name even if you have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by several years. There is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on 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 Complainant has asserted that the Website is used by the Respondent to market counterfeit P90X goods. In the Panel’s view, there can be no legitimate interest in the sale of counterfeits (Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles,WIPO Case No. D2004-0750).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfills the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. 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 Complainant has asserted that the disputed domain name has been used (without authorization from the Complainant and without any disclaimer as to such) to offer for sale counterfeit products under the Trade Mark via the Website. The Respondent has not contested that this was indeed the case. Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use (Prada S.A. v. Domains For Life,WIPO Case No. D2004-1019). The Panel further notes that the Website associated with the disputed domain name is currently inactive and that such use of the disputed domain name does amount in the present circumstances to acting in bad faith as stated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The Panel therefore finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Given the circumstances of this case, the Panel also considers the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complainant’s pre-filing correspondence and to file a Response to the Complaint 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).
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 20, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy