The Complainant is Lange Uhren GmbH of Glashütte, Germany, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Ye Li of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1API GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2013. On November 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 25, 2013, the Registrar 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 November 26, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 16, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 17, 2013.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the Sole Panelist in this matter on December 31, 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a well-known provider of luxury watches and holds various registrations for its trademark A. LANGE & SÖHNE dating back to February 28, 1991 and designating among other countries China, where the Respondent is domiciled.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 26, 2013 and is connected to a website offering sponsored links, inter alia, to competitors of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends the following:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it contains the A. LANGE & SÖHNE trademark, merely omits the non-critical symbol “&”, and adds the generic top level domain “.net”. Such minor alterations do not render the disputed domain name less confusing for purposes of the confusingly similar analysis.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the Complainant’s trademark and has never used any trademark or service mark similar to the disputed domain name by which it may have come to be known. The Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name, and is not making any protected noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any license, permission or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registrations which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with either actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights by virtue of the Complainant’s prior registrations in China, the United States and Germany. Also, the disputed domain name has been used to publish a website advertising third-party websites offering for sale products of the Complainant’s competitors and/or to direct visitors to competing goods and services of others. Such activities fall squarely into the explicit example of bad faith registration and use found in the Policy at paragraph 4(b)(iv). Further, such activities are disruptive to the Complainant's business and therefore conclusive evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. There is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off of the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. As such, the nature of the disputed domain name itself evidences bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Proceedings
While the Complainant could not locate the registration agreement applicable to this case, the Registrar confirmed that the language of such agreement was English. Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of these proceedings shall be English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is basically comprised of the Complainant’s well-known trademark A. LANGE & SÖHNE, with the omission of the space between “A.” and “LANGE” and the symbol “&” (which cannot be included in a domain name) and the addition of the generic top level domain “.net”. These minor alterations to the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name are insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
By not filing a Response, the Respondent has not provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests on the basis of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise. There are no indications in the record before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It may be concluded under the circumstances of this case that the Respondent must have known of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation when the disputed domain name was registered.
The disputed domain name is being used to redirect Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to a website with sponsored links to competing products and services, with the intention to generate income for the Respondent. Such conduct falls under the example of bad faith registration and use of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use, and the Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: January 9, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy