The Complainant is Nutricia International B.V. of Luchthaven Schiphol, Netherlands, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Peter Chan of Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 21, 2017. On September 21, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 22, 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 October 5, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 25, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 26, 2017.
The Center appointed Rodrigo Azevedo as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 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 a specialized healthcare division of the food company Danone, focused on research-based nutrition developed to meet the needs of patients and individuals for whom a normal diet is not sufficient or possible.
The Complainant uses the brand APTAMIL to identify its main formula milk products, designed to help in babies and toddlers’ development.
The Complainant owns several APTAMIL trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including in Hong Kong, China, dating as early as 1978.
The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names containing the term “aptamil”, including , registered on October 26, 1999, and , registered on February 20, 2012.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 22, 2017.
The Panel accessed the disputed domain name on November 13, 2017, when it was linked to a webpage that commercializes APTAMIL products and displays the Complainant’s logo, as well as offers for sale competing products and brands such as “Babylove” and “Bebivita”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant and its APTAMIL trademark enjoy a worldwide reputation. The Complainant owns numerous APTAMIL trademark registrations around the world. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark APTAMIL in its entirety, which previous panels have considered as well-known.
In many UDRP WIPO decisions, Panels have considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the trademark APTAMIL with the addition of the suffix “hk”, which is the International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) country code for Hong Kong, China. The incorporation of the letters “hk” does not avoid the confusion. In the contrary, the incorporation of these letters contributes to the likelihood of confusion, as consumers will believe that the products offered originate from a Hong Kong based affiliate of the Complainant. Prior cases have held that the incorporation of an ISO or ccTLD code is a non-distinctive element which does not avoid confusing similarity. Subsequently, the extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Additionally, in view of the page set up by the Respondent, the likelihood of confusion is rather enhanced. The disputed domain name resolves towards a webpage which creates a false affiliation with the Complainant and targets the market in Hong Kong, where the Complainant is well established. The fraudulent website displays the logo of the Complainant and commercializes several APTAMIL products together with competitors’ brands of infant milk products. Accordingly, the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. It is likely that the disputed domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with the Complainant and thus may heighten the risk of confusion.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the aforesaid trademark and to use pictures of the products belonging to the Complainant. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as APTAMIL trademarks have been registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent is not known by the name “aptamil”. The disputed domain name is so identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark APTAMIL that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name. In previous decisions, Panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed. Besides, the Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Due to the presence of APTAMIL logo and products on the Respondent’s website, Internet users are likely to wrongly believe it is an official website. Competitors’ products like “Babylove” and “Bebivita” are also offered on sale on the website. Such circumstances do not represent a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. It cannot be inferred that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed domain name. The Respondent is making a non-legitimate use of the disputed domain name, with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers from the Complainant’s official website. Moreover, it is possible that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to sell fake or counterfeit items that could be hazardous for babies’ health. Such behavior cannot be regarded as a legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name and cannot provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name. Furthermore, an e-mail server has been configured on the disputed domain name and thus, there might be a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme. Subsequently, the Respondent never answered to the Complainant’s letter despite the Complainant’s reminders. Panels have repeatedly stated that when respondents do not avail themselves of their rights to respond to complainant, it can be assumed that respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Cumulatively, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name by providing an incomplete address in the WhoIs records to prevent the Complainant from contacting him. Thus, such a behavior highlights the fact that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. (i) Bad faith can be found where a respondent “knew or should have known” of the complainant’s trademark rights and, nevertheless registered a domain name in which he had no rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant is well-known throughout the world, including in Hong Kong, China – the home country of the Respondent. Given this fact, it is impossible that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark and products at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. A previous panel mentioned the worldwide reputation of APTAMIL trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which creates a false affiliation with the Complainant and targets the market in Hong Kong, where the Complainant is well established, commercializing APTAMIL products without authorization and displaying the Complainant’s logo. Finally, it appears that the Respondent is a cyber-squatter and a persistent offender who is constantly targeting the Complainant through the registration of domain names like and using different identities with the exact fraudulent website. It was the Respondent’s duty to verify that the registration of the disputed domain name would not infringe the rights of any third party before registering said domain name. Moreover, a quick APTAMIL trademark search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its trademark. The Respondent’s failure to do so is a contributory factor to its bad faith. It would have been pertinent for the Respondent to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent neither tried to defend his rights nor stated any valid arguments to justify the registration of the disputed domain name in response to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide correct contact details since the postal address is incomplete in the WhoIs records thus preventing an efficient postal contact with the owner of the disputed domain name which it is considered to be a breach of the registration agreement. In fact, the Respondent is indulged in a cybersquatting pattern of activity since he registered several domain names reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and leading to the same webpage displaying the same contact information (Bobobio HK Ltd). In addition, the Respondent was already condemned in previous proceedings, as well as the prior registrant of the disputed domain name, Bruce Chang. Consequently, in view of the abovementioned circumstances, it is established that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. (ii) Additionally, some elements may be put forward to support the finding that the Respondent also uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Previous Panels have considered that in the absence of any license or permission from a complainant to use a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed. The use of pictures of the Complainant’s products without any authorization also suggests bad faith. There is no doubt that many Internet users attempting to visit the Complainant’s website have ended up on the web page set up by the Respondent. As the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, previous Panels have ruled that a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the complainant’s site to the respondent’s site. Furthermore, it is most likely that the website at the disputed domain name is offering imitations of the Complainant’s products which can be hazardous for babies’ health. Indeed, the use of a third party trademark without any prior consent to promote products that are similar to the products of the trademark supports a finding of bad faith. Cumulatively, such use of the disputed domain name demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to abusively benefit from the Complainant’s reputation and particularly from its trademark APTAMIL to commercialize fake or counterfeit products and to make undue profits. This cannot be considered as a use in good faith, as the Complainant’s products are associated with other competitors’ brands of babies’ products. This behavior results to customer diversion from the Complainant’s website and unfair competition. It is more likely than not, that the Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain name was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest of confusion. This behavior is likely to mislead the Internet users to link the site to which the disputed domain name is directed to that of the Complainant. It may also cause Internet users to wrongly believe that there is a possible relationship between the Complainant (sponsorship, affiliate, or warranty of the products) and the fraudulent website. Moreover, the Respondent might be engaged in a phishing scheme as an e-mail server has been configured on the disputed domain name. Finally, it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name. All aforementioned circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “aptamil” is a term directly connected with the Complainant’s formula milk products.
Annex 6 to the Complaint shows registrations of the APTAMIL trademark obtained by the Complainant in Hong Kong, China and in the European Union, as early as in 1978 and 2010, respectively.
The trademark APTAMIL is wholly encompassed within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark APTAMIL by the addition of the suffix “hk” (common acronym for Hong Kong, China), as well as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Previous UDRP decisions have found that the mere addition of geographical terms to a trademark in a domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity (see, e.g., BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Oloyi,WIPO Case No. D2017-0284, ; and Allianz SE v. IP Legal, Allianz Bank Limited,WIPO Case No. D2017-0287, ).
It is also already well established that the addition of a gTLD extension such as “.com” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides some examples without limitation of how a respondent can demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name:
(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.
Based on the Respondent’s default and on the prima facie evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the above circumstances are not present in this particular case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has not licensed nor authorized the use of its trademark to the Respondent, and the Panel finds no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is currently linked to a formula milk online store. Previous UDRP WIPO cases have shown that a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if its use meets certain requirements. These requirements normally include, inter alia, the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.)
The present case does not fit into these requirements: the Respondent is not an authorized reseller of APTAMIL formula milk products; the website at the disputed domain name offers for sale APTAMIL products, but also other brands such as “Babylove” and “Bebivita”; and there is no disclosure concerning the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant or the APTAMIL trademark.
Consequently, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has proven the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances in particular, but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
When the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent (in 2017) the trademark APTAMIL was already directly connected to the Complainant’s formula milk products worldwide, including in Hong Kong, China.
The disputed domain name encompasses the trademark APTAMIL, together with the term “hk”, which is a common acronym for Hong Kong, China. The Complainant sells its formula milk products under the trademark APTAMIL in Hong Kong, China for decades. The APTAMIL trademark was registered by the Complainant in Hong Kong, China in 1978.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is currently linked to a webstore offering several formula milk products for sale, and containing reproductions of the Complainant’s trademark, among other competing brands.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that it would definitely not be feasible to consider that the Respondent could not have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark, as well as that the adoption of the expression “aptamilhk” could be a mere coincidence.
Actually, in doing so, the Respondent:
(i) creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark; and
(ii) potentially obtains revenue selling APTAMIL and other competing products to consumers that were looking for the Complainant; and
(iii) deprives the Complainant from selling its products to prospective clients.
Furthermore, the passive and non-collaborative posture of the Respondent, not at least providing justifications for the use of a third-party trademark, certainly cannot be used in benefit of the Respondent in the present case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and the Complainant has also satisfied the third element 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 the Complainant.
Rodrigo Azevedo
Sole Panelist
Date: November 17, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy