The Complainant is Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Tarrytown, New York, United States of America, represented by Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Yang Yi of Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 23, 2015. On April 24, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 27, 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 April 23, 2015, the Respondent sent a Chinese language email to the Complainant advising that the Respondent was willing to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Accordingly, on April 27, 2015, the Center received a suspension request from the Complainant by email. The Center notified the parties of the suspension of the proceeding on April 29, 2015.
On May 18, 2015, upon the Complainant’s request to reinstitute the proceeding dated May 15, 2015, the Center notified the parties of the reinstitution of the proceeding by email.
On May 19, 2015, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding to the parties. On May 19, 2015, the Center received the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding. On May 21, 2015, the Center received the Respondent’s request that Chinese be the language of the proceeding.
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 May 27, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 16, 2015. The Response was filed with the Center on May 27, 2015.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 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. Discussion and Findings 4.1 Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.
Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding.
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceeding, for the following reasons:
(1) The disputed domain name consists of English language letters;
(2) The Complainant’s REGENERON trade mark is composed of English language letters;
(3) Neither the Complainant nor its legal representatives have knowledge of the Chinese language. As such, requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would result in significant delay and cost to the Complainant;
(4) Decisions in prior UDRP proceedings involving the Respondent have established that the Respondent has registered multiple domain names consisting of English language letters;
(5) Decisions in prior UDRP proceedings involving the Respondent have established that the Respondent is familiar with the English language.
Prior to notifying the Center of the Respondent’s consent to the transfer the disputed domain name, the Respondent requested that Chinese be the language of the proceeding, for the following reasons:
(1) The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese; and
(3) The disputed domain name was registered in China.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.
The Panel notes the Response was communicated to the Center in both Chinese and English, which demonstrates that the Respondent is sufficiently proficient in the English language.
The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.
The Panel considers the fact the Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name is a further relevant consideration in support of English as the language of the proceeding.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 4.2 Consent to Transfer
The Respondent confirmed in its Response the Respondent’s consent to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. “[A] genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements.” (See The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132. See also paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition). The Panel agrees with this approach. 5. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders, without making any findings adverse to the Respondent, that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M. W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Date: July 3, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy