The Complainant is Nalco Company of Illinois, United States of America, represented by Ladas & Parry, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Jiafei Zhao of Jiang Su, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 25, 2014, 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 July 31, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 20, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 21, 2014.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 2014. 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 supplier of industrial and institutional products and services offering goods and services in diverse fields such as water treatment, aluminium processing, chemical processing, refining, mining operations and the production of gas and diesel additives.
The Complainant owns rights in the trade mark NALCO in the United States and China indicating exclusive rights to use the NALCO mark in relation to various chemicals, water treatment, aluminium processing, chemical processing, refining, mining operations, the production of gas and diesel alternatives, and related goods in the United States and China, with first use being recorded back to the 1920s in the United States.
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s NALCO mark in its entirety.
The Respondent is associated with a large number of domain names, examples of which include some very well-known trade marks and has been found on several occasions to have registered and used domain names containing famous marks in bad faith under the Policy. The Respondent has sought to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is a supplier of industrial and institutional products and services offering goods and services in diverse fields such as water treatment, aluminium processing, chemical processing, refining, mining operations and the production of gas and diesel additives.
The Complainant owns rights in the trade mark NALCO in the United States and China indicating exclusive rights to use the NALCO mark in relation to various chemicals, water treatment, aluminium processing, chemical processing, refining, mining operations, the production of gas and diesel alternatives, and related goods in the United States and China, with first use being recorded back to the 1920s in the United States.
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s NALCO mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.info” serves no purpose in distinguishing the Domain Name from the NALCO mark as it is a functional necessity rather than an arbitrary trade mark choice.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in relation to bona fide goods and services, been commonly known by the Domain Name or has been making a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name without consent from the Complainant.
The Respondent has registered the Domain Name to prevent the Complainant from registering a corresponding domain name and has been involved in a pattern of such registrations. In previous UDRP decisions the Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names containing well-known names in bad faith including offers to sell domain names for profit, confusing use in relation to links to businesses unconnected with the owner of the famous trade marks and being involved in a pattern of registrations and seeking to block the registration of a corresponding domain names to a registration. In NVIDIA Corporation v Zhao Jiafei,WIPO Case No.D2013-1014, the Respondent was found to own a large number of domains containing well-known third party trade marks and found to be sophisticated in using aliases and involved in cybersquatting activities. The Respondent is associated with 451 domain names including ; , , ; ; ; and .
The Respondent has offered the Domain Name for sale to the Complainant by email. This is evidence of bad faith under the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(1) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(3) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Apart from the “.info” suffix which is generic for the purposes of the Policy in this context, the Domain Name consists and comprises of the Complainant’s NALCO mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NALCO mark and, as such, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not filed a Response (i.e., it has not shown any circumstances under the Policy paragraph 4(c) which may apply to its favour) and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has indicated that it has not endorsed the Respondent in any way and the Respondent’s business has no obvious connection with the designation “nalco”. As such, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four non-exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including:
“circumstances indicating that [the Respondent has] registered or [has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name” (paragraph 4(b)(i))
The Complainant received an email from the “manager” of the Domain Name which said “We are the manager of the international domain name . If you want to buy it please let me know”. As such, since the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint and has given no reason why it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name comprising the long held trade mark of the Complainant and the gTLD “.info” , the Panel, therefore, finds that bad faith has been demonstrated under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
In the face of this clear evidence, there is no need to consider further the argument that the holding of the Domain Name is primarily to prevent the Complainant from registering a domain name corresponding to the Domain Name and forming part of a pattern of behaviour by the Respondent. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: September 9, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy