Complainant is Robert Rolls & Co Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom" or "UK"), represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Daning Future Control (Xu Daning) of Changsha, Hunan, China, self-represented. 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 January 31, 2017. On January 31, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2017. No formal response was ever filed, although a one-sentence informal response was submitted to the Center on February 7, 2017. No further communications were received from Respondent except for a one-line email in Chinese (untranslated) on March 7, 2017 which has not been taken into consideration as the language of the proceedings herein is English, as the Center indicated to the Respondent on March 8, 2017.
The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on March 7, 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
Complainant is a wholesale wine business called Robert Rolls & Co Limited ("Rolls Wines"). Since its founding in 1982, Complainant's business has been importing wines from French vineyards and selling them throughout the United Kingdom to restaurants, bars, and private buyers. Complainant has an unregistered common law right in the marks ROLLS and ROLLS WINES acquired in the UK by virtue of continuous use of the name "Rolls Wines", "Robert Rolls" and "Rolls Wine" and the website address "www.".
Complainant registered the disputed domain name in 1998 and used the domain name as its email address continuously until October 2016. The disputed domain name was also used to direct customers to Complainant's website and was featured and appeared on all promotional material since 1998. Despite all intentions to renew the disputed domain name prior to its expiration date in October 2016, unbeknownst to Complainant, the disputed domain name registration inadvertently lapsed.
From the record, it would appear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 12, 2016, immediately after Complainant inadvertently failed to renew the registration. The webpage at the disputed domain name advertises the name for sale.
Email correspondence between Complainant's domain name service provider, Focus IT Services, and Respondent, shows that Respondent sought USD 10,000 for the return of the disputed domain name and was unwilling to accept Complainant's offer of USD 2,000. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's ROLLS WINE mark, which it used continuously from as early as 1998 until the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on October 12, 2016.
Complainant also contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name, , does not resolve to a functioning website but instead a location to advertise the purchase of the disputed domain name from Respondent.
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name, and is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any products or services. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in a bad faith attempt to demand payment from Complainant to return the disputed domain name. Complainant also asserts that Respondent's registration of a domain name that is identical to its well-known and incontestable trademarks indicates bad faith by Respondent. Complainant alleges that Respondent's refusal to negotiate a price lower than USD 10,000 for the disputed domain name, even after multiple negotiation attempts by Complainant, is evidence of Respondent's bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not file a formal response meeting the Policy requirements. Respondent sent an email reply to the Center stating, in full, that "I am not good at English. I will reply you asap." Respondent did not send any other responses and did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In rendering its decision, the Panel must adjudicate the dispute in accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules which provides that: "[The] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules further provides that: "If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate." Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules further provides that: "If a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint."
The failure of Respondent to respond to Complainant's contentions does not automatically result in a favorable decision to Complainant, which is specifically required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to establish each of the three elements as provided therein.
The Panel finds that Complainant has met each of the elements required by the Policy. In particular, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's marks, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Each of the three elements are assessed in detail below. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights to the trademarks ROLLS WINES, ROBERT ROLLS, ROLLS WINE, and the disputed domain name . Complainant first used the disputed domain name in commerce in 1998 and has made continuous use of it since then in relation to the wholesale of wine. Complainant established that Robert Rolls is well-known in conjunction with wine or wine services to the extent that the use of ROLLS in relation to wine or wine services would inevitably lead to an association with ROLLS WINE. Furthermore, Complainant used the disputed domain name to direct customers to Complainant's website since at least as early as 1998 and was featured and appeared on all promotional material since 1998.
Respondent registered the identical domain name immediately after it became available. Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name contains only Complainant's mark, in its entirety. There is complete identity between Complainant's ROLLS WINE mark and the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent is neither known by, nor authorized to use, Complainant's mark. Respondent does not claim otherwise. Respondent does not have any substantive website at "www." other than an advertising page that advertises the disputed domain name for sale. Nothing in the record reflects Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. See TVS Motor Company Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Limited,WIPO Case No. DCO2014-0007.
Respondent's failure to substantively respond, coupled with Complainant's contentions, indicate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent's conduct in this case demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
It appears that Respondent seized the opportunity to register the disputed domain name immediately after Complainant's registration expired on October 12, 2016.
Complainant provided evidence that the sole purpose of the disputed domain name is to advertise the sale of the disputed domain name. Complainant's domain name service provider, Focus IT Services, attempted to negotiate with Respondent. The record shows that Respondent sought USD 10,000 for the disputed domain name and was unwilling to negotiate or to accept Complainant's offer of USD 2,000. Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: March 13, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy