The Complainant is E. REMY MARTIN & Co. of Cognac, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is 李伟 of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Beijing Sanfront Information Technology Co., Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2014. On October 8, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 10, 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. In response to a notification by the Center regarding the Registrar information, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 13, 2014.
On October 13, 2014, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 in both Chinese and English, and the proceeding commenced on October 20, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 9, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 11, 2014.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on November 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 company incorporated in France producing and selling cognacs and liquors. It is the owner of registrations in China for the trade mark 人头马 (the “Trade Mark”), for example, Chinese Trade Mark Registration No.992742, registered on April 28, 1997. The Trade Mark has been recognized as a well-known trade mark in China by the Trademark Office of The State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People’s Republic of China.
The Respondent is an individual resident in China.
The disputed domain names were both registered on August 20, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions are set out below.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names and consists of the Trade Mark 人头马 and the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) “.公司” and “.网络”. The disputed domain names are, therefore, other than the gTLDs identical to the Complainant’s Trade Mark.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. It is not commonly known by the name “人头马”. It has not received any consent or license from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s Trade Mark.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith with the intention of confusing Internet users as to some link between the disputed domain names and the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreements is Chinese. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that:
“Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative 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”.
The Complainant requested the language of the proceeding to be English on the grounds: (a) English is the most widely used language in international relations; (b) that the Complainant could not gather any further information about the Respondent because the pages the disputed domain names resolved to were inactive; and (c) the Complainant, based in France, has no knowledge of Chinese.
The Center made a preliminary determination to:
1) accept the Complaint as filed in English;
2) accept a Response in either English or Chinese;
3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available.
The final determination of the language of the proceeding lies with this Panel.
This Panel decided in Z, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade,WIPO Case No. D2008-1191, that a respondent’s failure to respond to a preliminary determination by the Center as to the language of the proceeding “should, in general, be a strong factor to allow the Panel to decide to proceed in favour of the language of the Complaint”.
Further, as set out below, the Panel considers the merits of the case to be strongly in favour of the Complainant. In this Panel’s view, the availability of new gTLDs is creating many more opportunities for cybersquatting which will stretch the resources of many brand owners. Translating the Complaint would cause unnecessary delay in this matter.
These factors lead the Panel to determine to follow the Center’s preliminary determination. As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English. Substantive decision
The Panel finds that this is a clear case of domain name hijacking that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel agrees fully with the Complainant’s arguments and accordingly does not consider it necessary to write a long decision. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are made up of the Complainant’s registered Trade Mark人头马, and the gTLDs “.公司” and “.网络”. They are identical to the Complainant’s registered Trade Mark.
The first element of the Policy is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain names. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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.
The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is m
ade out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
While the disputed domain names are not being used, this does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. Having examined all the circumstances of the case the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. (See Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition)
The Panel finds that the third element of the Policy 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: December 15, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy