The Complainant is Archer-Daniels-Midland Company of Decatur, Illinois, United States of America ("USA"), represented by Innis Law Group LLC, USA.
The Respondent is Zhang Qiang of Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 1, 2015. On October 2, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 3, 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.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on October 27, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 16, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 17, 2015.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 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. Factual Background A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the State of Illinois in the USA and the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the word, stylised word and device marks ADM (the "Trade Mark(s)"), the earliest (USA) registration dating from 1986, with a date of first use of 1923.
The Complainant uses the Trade Marks in relation to a wide range of goods and services, including futures brokerage services provided by ADM Investor Services, Inc., a subsidiary located in Chicago, Illinois, for over 40 years ("ADMIS"); and futures brokerage services provided by ADMIS Hong Kong Limited ("ADMIS HK"), a subsidiary located in Hong Kong, China, for almost 20 years. ADMIS and ADMIS HK also use the Trade Marks in relation to online futures brokerage services provided via their "" and ".hk" websites (the "Complainant's Websites"). B. Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on April 10, 2014. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name is resolved to a website which copies the content of the Complainant's Websites, including the ADM device mark and the name of ADMIS, and which offers the same financial services products offered by the Complainant under the Trade Marks (the "Respondent's Website"). 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's ADM Trade Mark in its entirety, and, furthermore, is identical to the ADMIS acronym used by the Complainant in relation to its futures brokerage business.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Marks. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Respondent's Website, the content of which (including the ADMIS logo) has been brazenly copied from the Complainant's Websites in order to deliberately pass off the Respondent's Website as a website of, or otherwise sponsored, authorised, licensed or approved by, the Complainant.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the evidence of the Respondent's use of the Respondent's Website in the manner described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 3, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy