The Complainant is Guccio Gucci S.p.A. of Florence, Italy, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.
The Respondent is Xinjian Hu of Shangqiu, Henan, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 6, 2014. On November 6, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 7, 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. On November 10, 2014, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On November 11, 2014, the Complainant confirmed its 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.
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 17, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 7, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 10, 2014.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 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 Italy producing and selling various luxury goods and high end fashion items. It is the owner of registrations around the world including in China for the trademark GUCCI.
The Respondent is an individual resident in China.
The disputed domain names were all registered between March 10, 2014 and March 12, 2014.
58 of the disputed domain names re-direct to websites selling apparently counterfeit Gucci products as well as products of other famous brands. The remaining 3 disputed domain names , and resolve to inactive websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant's contentions are set out below.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark GUCCI. The disputed domain names incorporate the whole of the Complainant's GUCCI trademark. The fact that the disputed domain names include the non-distinctive elements "baobao", "guqi", "hello", "t", "tw", "abc", "ba", "dodo", "ok", "baba", "bebe", "cici", "dada", "fafa", "fifi", "gigi", "hk", "hihi", "kaka", "kiki", "lala", "mimi", "mingpaibao", "mulu", "nana", "nene", "oa", "opq", "papa", "pp", "qaqa", "qiqi", "roro", "sasa", "soso", "ss", "tata", "tiantian", "vava", "vivi", "wiwi", "xaxa", "xixi", "yaya", "zaza", "zozo", "gui", "haha", "hala", "hehe", "hi", "jj", "jojo", "joy", "los", "ml", "nan", "pei" and/or the numbers "5566", "3721", "2014" and "2013" does not affect the confusing similarity.
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 disputed domain names. It has not received any consent or license from the Complainant to use the Complainant's trademark.
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 Proceedings
The language of the Registration Agreement 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 that all the disputed domain names are made up of letters in Ascii-Script, rather than Chinese, which could be pronounced phonetically in English and English is the most widely used language in international relations; that the Complainant could not gather any further information about the Respondent because the postal address provided by the Respondent in the WhoIs database appears to be clearly false and the Respondent never replied to the Complainant's cease and desist letter and the Complainant, based in Italy, 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. Translating the Complaint would cause unnecessary delay in this matter. In this case, the Respondent has registered numerous domain names incorporating the Complainant's trademark under the same ".asia" generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD).
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 trademark GUCCI, and the gTLD ".asia". The additional words, letters or numbers added to each of the disputed domain names do not take away the confusing similarity with the Complainant's registered trademark GUCCI.
The Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar the to the Complainant's registered trademark.
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 made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy 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."
This applies to the 58 disputed domain names that are resolving to webpages selling apparently counterfeit Gucci products. The disputed domain names are being used to attract Internet users for commercial gain.
For the three disputed domain names which do not resolve to active websites, given the registration by the Respondent of 58 other domain names containing the trademark GUCCI and which are being used for commercial gain, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that they have been registered with the intent to create confusion that a website under the domain names are in some way related to the Complainant. (See paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overivew of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"))
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 30, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy