The Complainant is Ecco Sko A/S of Bredebro, Denmark, represented internally.
The Respondent is kang jiahua of Putian, Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names and are registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
The disputed domain name is registered with Hangzhou E-Business Services Co., Ltd. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 30, 2013. On January 30, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou E-Business Services Co., Ltd. (the “Registrars”) a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 31, 2013, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On January 31, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of proceedings. On February 1, 2013, the Complainant confirmed its 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 February 6, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 26, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 27, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on March 7, 2013. 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. Language of Proceedings
The language of the registration agreements for all disputed domain names is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of these proceedings be English on the basis that the websites that the disputed domain names resolve to are written solely in English. The Respondent is clearly conversant in English. The Panel determines in the circumstances of this case that the language of proceedings be English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant was established in 1963 and is the second largest producer of casual footwear in the world. It has registrations for the trademark ECCO around the world and, in particular, has registered the mark in China in class 25. The Complainant also operates a website under the domain name .
The disputed domain names were all registered on June 29, 2012. The websites under the disputed domain names resolve to websites that are replicas of the Complainant’s webshop at “www.”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered trademark ECCO. They are composed of the Complainant’s trademark ECCO and the generic and/or geographic terms “online shoes”, “uk sale” and “shoes us”.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as the Respondent has not made any bona fide use of the disputed domain names. Rather the websites at the disputed domain names resolve to ”identical unlicensed and infringing replicas of the Complainant’s original webshop” .
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith with the intention of diverting Internet users to their websites (which appear to be the website of the Complainant). B. Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a very simple case of domain name cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names , and are composed of the Complainant’ s registered trademark ECCO and the generic and/or geographical terms “online shoes”, “uk sale” and “shoes us”. The Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case, as the Respondent appears to utilize wholesale replications of the Complainant’s webshop and trademarks at the disputed domain names, which cannot be the basis for the finding of any rights or legitimate interests on behalf of the Respondent.
Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names , and were registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain names resolve to commercial websites that falsely suggest that these are related to the Complainant.
This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
The third element of the UDRP is made out. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy