The Complainant is London Capital Group Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is shanghaijianotong maoyiyouxiangongsi of Wahaha, Chad. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 28, 2016. On December 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 29, 2017, 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 proceedings commenced on January 11, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 1, 2017.
The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 10, 2017. 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 the proprietor of the trade mark LCG. Its International Registration No. 1279417 for LCG was registered on October 6, 2015. It covers, inter alia, financial services, monetary affairs, stockbroking, financial evaluations, financial exchange services, financial trading etc. The Complainant is also the International registration holder of the mark
(“the logo”) which covers the same range of services (International Registration No. 1280867). This registration also dates from October 6, 2015.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to the Respondent’s website which provides financial services including but not limited to foreign exchange services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark LCG in which the Complainant has rights as it takes the Complainant’s registered trade mark in its entirety. The element “fx” is generic for “foreign exchange” services and the word “global” is descriptive of the Respondent’s intended outreach.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trade marks which comprise the disputed domain name. The term “lcg” is not descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic, dictionary meaning. The Respondent has no connection to the Complainant and the latter has not consented to the Respondent’s use of its registered trade marks in a domain name registration.
To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge the Respondent is not commonly known as “lcg”. The Respondent’s website is a clear copy of the Complainant’s, with the exception that the Respondent’s website is displayed in Mandarin. Further, the Respondent’s website displays the Complainant’s registered address and a number of contact details that belong to the Complainant. The Respondent appears to be posing as the Complainant to attract custom from Mandarin-speaking customers. Such use of the disputed domain name cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s registered rights predate November 3, 2016. The Respondent has brazenly adopted the logo and website format, and claimed an association with the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s contact details and registered address. This indicates the Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainant. The Respondent’s attempts to attract Chinese-speaking consumers under the guise that it is the Complainant, is a clear example of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Respondent’s contact details shown on WhoIs are fictitious, which contravenes its registration agreement with ICANN.
A cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Respondent on December 21, 2016. No response was received. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three elements, namely that:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has satisfied the requirement of showing that it has rights in the trade mark LCG. The LCG trade mark has been incorporated in the disputed domain name. The LCG mark is identifiable in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the addition of the abbreviation “fx” and the word “global” does not serve to remove the confusing similarity with the LCG trade mark; “fx” is a commonly-used reference for the term “foreign exchange” and “global” is generic/descriptive in nature. (See paragraph 1.2 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”))
The Panel accordingly concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has to satisfy its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy by establishing a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. (See paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0)
The Panel finds there to be sufficient prima facie evidence that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and has not authorised the Respondent to use or register the LCG trade mark or to register the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent being known by the name “lcg” or any name that is similar thereto.
The Respondent did not file any Response and thereby failed to provide rebuttal evidence which would demonstrate that it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Panel accordingly concludes that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel does not find it difficult in the circumstances of this case to arrive at a conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. The blatant reproduction and copying of the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s website, including copying of the logo and the Complainant’s LCG trade mark and London Capital Group name, fall within the circumstance described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online 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”.
The Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name and the elements which make up the disputed domain name reveal that it is well acquainted with the Complainant and its LCG trade marks. This is further made evident by the content and appearance of its website. The Panel further draws negative inferences from (i) the failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and to the Complaint filed in this proceeding, and (ii) in its submission of false contact information when registering the disputed domain name. The evidence presented by the Complainant indeed shows bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
The Panel accordingly concludes that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been 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.
Francine Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: February16, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy