The Complainant is eBay Inc. of San Jose, California, United States of America, represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondents are Du Hongxia of Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China; Liu Yujiao of Pingxiang, Jiangxi Province, China; WHOIS AGENT, DOMAIN WHOIS PROTECTION SERVICE of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and (together the "Domain Names") are registered with Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 17, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names and the domain name . On November 19, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Registrar also informed the Center that the domain name was not registered. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 21, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, informing the Complainant of the apparent availability of the domain name and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 26, 2014.
On November 21, 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 Respondents 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 Respondents of the Complaint in both Chinese and English, and the proceeding commenced on November 28, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 18, 2014. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents' default on December 19, 2014.
The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 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.
Procedural issues arise in relation to three matters, namely the identity of the Respondent(s), the language of the proceeding and whether it is appropriate for this case to proceed in relation to all the Domain Names in light of the fact that there are apparently two underlying registrants. For the reasons set out in section 6.B. below, the Panel finds that of the three above-named Respondents the privacy protection service (WHOIS AGENT, DOMAIN WHOIS PROTECTION SERVICE) used by the other two above-named Respondents may be ignored, that Du Hongxia and Liu Yujiao, the other two above-named Respondents, are either one and the same person or are acting in concert or are under common control and may be treated as one for the purpose of this proceeding. In other words, it is appropriate that the case should proceed to a decision in relation to all the Domain Names. Finally, the Panel directs that English is the appropriate language of this proceeding notwithstanding that the language of the registration agreements is Chinese. The term "Respondent" is used throughout this decision to refer to both Du Hongxia and Liu Yujiao, the underlying registrants of the Domain Names. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a very well-known player in the online marketplace. It commenced business in 1995 and now has a global customer base of over 200 million people in 39 markets.
The Complainant is the proprietor of a large number of trade mark registrations featuring the name EBAY. For present purposes it is sufficient to mention one such registration, a Chinese registration, China being the country of residence of the Respondent, namely Chinese Trade Mark No. 1418902 EBAY (word) registered on July 7, 20101 in class 35.
The Domain Names were all registered on either August 4, 2014 or August 5, 2014 and are connected to various Chinese language websites appearing to be of a commercial nature. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's EBAY trade mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and, finally, contends that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Names, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Procedural Issues Respondent Identity
The invitation to the Complainant to file an amended Complaint (see above) stemmed partly2 from the fact that the registrants of the Domain Names, the above-named Du Hongxia and Liu Yujiao, were using a proxy service, the above-named WHOIS AGENT, DOMAIN WHOIS PROTECTION SERVICE, which concealed the underlying registrants' identities from anyone consulting the Registrar's WhoIs database. In the view of the Panel the privacy service, a mere cloak for the identities of the underlying registrants, has no material part to play in the merits of the dispute. It is for this reason that the Panel ignores the privacy service for the purposes of this decision. The Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides as follows:
"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 language of the registration agreements relating to the Domain Names is Chinese. However, the Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English primarily on the basis that it would be unduly harsh to require the Complainant to translate into Chinese all the voluminous documentation relating to the Domain Names in circumstances where the Respondent has so clearly targeted the Complainant's EBAY trade mark, which is a highly distinctive English name.
The Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate that the above-named Du Hongxia has also registered domain names of a similar format to the Domain Names, but targeting other well-known brands such as SONY, NIKE and BMW and that according to the Complainant's security systems some of the websites associated with these domain names have been identified as phishing/malware websites.
In addressing the Complainant's request the Panel must have regard to paragraph 10 of the Rules and in particular sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), which provide that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the proceeding takes place with "due expedition".
The Panel accepts that to require the Complainant to translate all the documentation relating to the Domain Names into Chinese would involve an enormous expense and lead to extensive delays in the conduct of the proceeding. But will the Respondent be unduly disadvantaged if the Panel directs that the language of the proceeding be English?
The Panel believes it likely that the Respondent, which has invested such an enormous commercial effort in targeting global brands such as those identified, is likely to understand or to have ready access to those who do understand English.
Another factor, which the Panel believes to be relevant is that the Complaint which has been transmitted to the Respondent in both Chinese and English features serious allegations against the Respondent, which one would expect the Respondent to wish to address. However, the Respondent has not responded and has shown no sign of any intention of participating in this proceeding.
Taking all the above into account, the Panel believes that to deny the Complainant's request would lead to unnecessary delay and expense and that to direct that the language of the proceeding be English will cause no disadvantage to the Respondent. The Panel directs that the language of the proceeding be English. Consolidation - Multiple Respondents
The Complainant has requested that the Complaint, which covers domain names held in the names of two differently named registrants, be permitted to proceed as one consolidated Complaint. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules provides that this is a matter for the Panel to decide "in accordance with the Policy and these Rules". The criteria to be applied in considering such requests is addressed in paragraph 4.16 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition.
These criteria encompass situations, where (i) the domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.
In support of its request for consolidation the Complainant has produced ample evidence to demonstrate that the above-named Du Hongxia and Liu Yujiao are either one and the same entity or are acting in concert with a common design or are under common control. The Registrar is the same for all the Domain Names, there are similarities in the registrants' email addresses, the domain name servers for the Domain Names are identical, the formats of the Domain Names are virtually identical, the Domain Names were all registered on either August 4, 2014 or August 5, 2014 and are each connected to one of three designs of website. There is nothing in the formats of the Domain Names, the dates of registration or the designs of websites to which the Domain Names are connected to differentiate between the named registrants.
Neither Du Hongxia nor Liu Yujiao has sought to challenge the Complainant's contentions in this (or any other) respect. The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that Du Hongxia and Liu Yujiao are either one and the same entity or are different people acting in concert with a common design or are under common control.
The Panel finds it to be fair and equitable that the Complaint proceeds as one consolidated Complaint. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names comprise the Complainant's EBAY trade mark, followed by a numeral or group of numerals and one or other of the generic ".com" and ".net" top level domain identifiers. Neither the addition of the numeral(s), nor the ".com" or ".net" suffixes detracts in any way from the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are all confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
While it is for the Complainant to prove all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in the case of the second element (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy) it is generally sufficient in the first instance for the Complainant to make out a prima facie case calling for an answer from the Respondent. As this Panel explained in Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Limited, WIPO Case No. D2001-0121:
"While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. It involves the Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel's view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head."
In this case the Complainant has demonstrated by its evidence that well before the dates of registration of the Domain Names it was well-known for its online marketplace service under and by reference to its EBAY trade mark.
In the view of the Panel, for the Respondent to have registered over 1,000 domain names all featuring, as the only distinctive element, the Complainant's well-known trade mark, a trade mark which is itself highly distinctive and on the evidence submitted by the Complainant a trade mark exclusive to the Complainant, calls for an explanation. The Complainant has made it clear that it has not authorized use of its trade mark in this way and there is nothing before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent might reasonably be said to have a justification for having behaved as it has.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case calling for an answer. In the absence of an answer the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that the registration of over 1,000 domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trade mark and the connection of them to what appear to be commercial websites (some of them seem to be websites associated with gambling) without any obvious justification for having done so and without the authority of the Complainant is likely to have been undertaken with abusive intent.
The Respondent has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Complainant's contentions, but has chosen not to do so.
In the circumstances and on the evidence before it the Panel finds that the Complainant is very likely to be correct when it contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Names for the purpose for which it appears to be using them, namely to trade for commercial gain on the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant's EBAY trade mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , be transferred to the Complainant.
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2015
1 The Complaint asserts that the registration took effect on July 7, 2000, but while the mark was applied for in 1999, the Panel could only find a reference to the 2010 date in the annex. Nothing turns on the difference as the Domain Names were all registered after the 2010 date.
2 and partly because the original Complaint included a domain name not held in the name of the Respondent.
Save for some English language copyright notices they are all in the Chinese language, not a language with which the Panel is familiar but which the Complainant has thoroughly explained in its pleadings, and which explanation is readily confirmed by some simple Internet research.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy