The Complainant is Sportswear Company S.p.A. of Bologna, Italy, represented by Barzanò & Zanardo Roma SpA, Italy.
The Respondent is Lin Ting of China; ting lin of Dongguan, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina ; the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd.; the disputed domain names and are registered with GoD, LLC (collectively, the "Registrars"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 31, 2017. On June 1, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. From June 2, 2017 to June 7, 2017, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, providing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 8, 2017, disclosing the registrant and contact information provided by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center transmitted a request for amendment to the Parties regarding the Registrars' information. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 12, 2017.
On June 8, 2017, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on June 9, 2017. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on June 16, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 6, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 7, 2017.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in Italy and the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the word and device trade mark STONE ISLAND (the "Trade Mark"), including International registration No. 899955, registered on June 1, 2006 (and designating China); and European Union registration No. 3785953, registered on September 2, 2005.
The Complainant has used the Trade Mark since 1982 in respect of clothing.
In 2016, the Complainant generated revenue of more than EUR 100 million. In China, the Complainant operates through shops in Hangzhou, Beijing, Wuhan, Shanghai, Changchun, Changsha and Chengdu. B. Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Names
The disputed domain names , , , , , , and were all registered on September 7, 2016.
The disputed domain names and were both registered on September 12, 2016.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 15, 2017.
The disputed domain names , , , and were all registered on September 19, 2016.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 25, 2016.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and were all registered on September 28, 2016.
The disputed domain names , , and were all registered on October 1, 2016.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and were all registered on October 11, 2016.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2016.
The disputed domain names , , and were all registered on November 15, 2016. D. Passive Use of the Disputed Domain Names
The disputed domain names have not been used. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used 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 agreements for the disputed domain names and is English. The language of the registration agreements for all of the other disputed domain names 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. However, paragraph 11(a) of the Rules 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 order 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 the language of the proceeding be English, on the grounds the disputed domain names are English language domain names.
The Respondent, having received the Center's communication regarding the language of the proceeding in both Chinese and English, did not make any submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. Having received notice of the proceeding in both Chinese and English, the Respondent chose not to file a response.
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 considers that the mere fact the disputed domain names are English language domain names does not support the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant in English. However, the Panel considers that, in light of the Respondent's decision to take no part in this proceeding, the Respondent will not be prejudiced if the language of the proceeding is English. The Panel also notes that the language of the registration agreements for two of the disputed domain names is English.
In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Consolidation of Respondents
Past UDRP decisions suggest that consolidation of multiple respondents may be appropriate, under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, if the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency is a further consideration. See section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0").
In the present proceeding:
1. All of the disputed domain names, except for and , are registered in the name of Lin Ting;
2. The disputed domain names and are registered in the name of Ting Lin, which is Lin Ting inverted. It is common practice in China for persons to use both the traditional Chinese language naming convention of the surname coming first, and also the Western naming convention of the surname coming last;
3. The telephone number in the WhoIs information for all of the disputed domain names is the same;
4. The email address in the WhoIs information for all of the disputed domain names, apart from , is the same;
5. The disputed domain names were all registered within the months of September, October and November 2016; and
6. The disputed domain names have all been passively held.
The Respondent has taken no part in this proceeding and has made no submissions on the question of consolidation. In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes sufficient evidence has been adduced to enable the conclusion to be drawn that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names. In all the circumstances, the Panel determines, under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, that consolidation of the Respondents is procedurally efficient and equitable to all the Parties, is consistent with the Policy and Rules, and comports with prior relevant UDRP decisions in respect of this issue1. 6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
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 Mark acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , and comprise the Trade Mark in its entirety and are, excluding the generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLDs") (in accordance with previous UDRP decisions), identical to the Trade Mark.
All of the other disputed domain names contain the Trade Mark in its entirety, together with descriptive and/or generic words, or letters with no apparent meaning, appearing after the Trade Mark. The Panel finds the addition of such generic and/or descriptive words, or letters with no apparent meaning, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trade Mark in any significant way.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. Accordingly, the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been made out. 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 names or to use the Trade Mark. 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 names, 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 names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have not been used.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) are met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the notoriety of the Complainant and of its Trade Mark (including in China, where the Respondent is based), the lack of any explanation from the Respondent, the sheer volume of domain names registered, and the passive use of the disputed domain names, the Panel has no hesitation in concluding the requisite element of bad faith has been made out. The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's Trade Mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2017
1 The Panel refers to the Respondents in the singular throughout this Decision.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy