The Complainant is Ulysse Nardin S. A. of Le Locle, Switzerland, represented by Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., Germany.
The Respondent is Wang Xin of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 27, 2015. On March 27, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 30, 2015, 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 March 31, 2015, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On April 2, 2015, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding by email to the Center. The Respondent did not comment within 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 in English and Chinese, and the proceeding commenced on April 10, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 30, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 1, 2015.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2015. 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 watch maker originally founded by Mr Ulysse Nardin in 1846 and has been in existence for more than 165 years. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademarks for ULYSSE NARDIN, including in China. The Complainant is the owner of the domain name
The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2015. At present, it does not resolve to any website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made entirely up of the registered trademark ULYSSE NARDIN and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".top" and a hypen. It is therefore other than the gTLD (and the hyphen which has no independent distinctiveness) identical to the Complainant's registered trademark ULYSSE NARDIN. No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for ULYSSE NARDIN. Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant's rights in the ULYSEE NARDIN trademark and registered the disputed domain name to attract business. Even though the disputed domain name has not yet been used, the registration is passive holding and, as such, its registration and use is in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement is in 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 as this is the language most commonly used in the international watch business and translating the Complaint would incur extra costs. The Complainant was content that the Respondent be allowed to respond in Chinese if he/she wished.
The Respondent did not respond to this request.
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.
The Respondent has not responded to the Center's preliminary determination.
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."
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 expense and 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. 6.2. Substantive Issues
This is a very simple case of clear cybersquatting which the UDRP was designed to stop. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark ULYSSE NARDIN, the gTLD ".top" and a hyphen (which has no distinctiveness by itself). The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark ULYSSE NARDIN.
The first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") provides:
"While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP."
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
While the disputed domain name has not yet been used, this does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Having examined all the circumstances of the case the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith. (See paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overivew 2.0).
The third part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. 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.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: June 18, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy