The Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Goi Media of Gwangju, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 20, 2018. On April 23, 2018, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 27 and 30, 2018, the Registrar transmitted to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s contact details.
On May 1, 2018, the Center notified the Parties, in both English and Korean, that the Complaint was submitted in English, and that according to the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean. In the same notification, the Center instructed the Complainant to provide, by May 4, 2018:
“1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or
2) submit the Complaint translated into Korean; or
….
3) submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings….”
To the Respondent, the Center stated that “if the Respondent is intending to participate in these proceedings, and/or has any comments on the Complainant’s submission replying to this notification, the Respondent is requested to submit these to the Center by May 6, 2018.” The Center also advised the Respondent:
“Specifically in the case of the Complainant submitting (or indicating that it will submit) a request for the language of proceedings to be English, and the Respondent objects to such request, the Respondent is invited to indicate that objection for the record, and to submit any arguments/supporting materials … as to why the proceedings should not be conducted in English.
Please note that if we do not hear from you by [May 6, 2018], we will proceed on the basis that you have no objection to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of proceedings.”
On May 2, 2018, the Respondent requested that the proceeding be conducted in Korean. On May 2 and 5, 2018, the Complainant transmitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding, attaching an Amended Complaint that reiterates and elaborates on the request.
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 of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on May 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was May 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any further response. Accordingly, on June 1, 2018, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel.
The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 2018. 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 describes itself as “a professional services and investment management firm specializing in real estate.”
The Complainant has registered its JLL mark in various countries, including the United States (Registration Nos. 4564654 and 4709457, on July 8, 2014, and March 24, 2015, respectively), and the Republic of Korea (Registration No. 4102816830000, on March 3, 2014).
The Complainant is the registrant of the domain name , registered on November 20, 1998.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 25, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. In addition, the Amended Complaint states:
“With a workforce of over 70,000 employees, Complainant serves clients in over 80 countries from more than 280 corporate office locations worldwide.”
“Complainant has a large internet presence and is the owner of numerous domain names which incorporate Complainant’s Marks.”
“Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way.”
“Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names.”
“Complainant is an industry leader in property and corporate facility management services, with a portfolio of 4.4 billion square feet worldwide, has a workforce of over 70,000 employees, and serves clients in over 80 countries from more than 280 corporate office locations worldwide, which demonstrates Complainant’s fame.” B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules allow the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s refusal to comply with the requirements under the Rules. 6. Discussion and Findings
Initially, the Panel must address the language of the proceeding.
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the registration agreement is the language of the administrative proceeding, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified in the registration agreement. The rule also states that the determination of the language is “subject to the authority of the Panel …, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” Here, the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean. Nevertheless, the Complainant requests that English be the language of the proceeding.
As the Center indicated to the Parties in its notification of the proceeding:
“The Complainant has submitted a request that English be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent has submitted a request that Korean be the language of the proceedings.
Given the provided submissions and circumstances of this case, the Center has decided to:
1) accept the Complaint as filed in English;
2) accept a Response in either English or Korean;
3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available.
In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of proceedings.”
The Panel has considered each party’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent’s correspondence to the Center and the Complainant, both on May 2, 2018, indicates that the Respondent is quite familiar with the UDRP proceeding and its particulars. Moreover, as advised by the Center, the Respondent could have submitted its Response in Korean, but declined to do so. Under these circumstances, there is little point in requiring that this proceeding be in Korean. Thus, this decision is in English.
On the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainant must satisfy each of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark, JLL. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. In the Panel’s view, the addition of “coin” does not defeat confusing similarity.
The first element is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s protected mark. The Complainant has met its initial burden of making a prima facie showing. The burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not submit a response on the merits. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise.
The second element is demonstrated. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” Paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that are “evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.
As of the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website whose content features text in English and Chinese (not Korean), including:
“The domain you visiting is asking for sale
您所访问的网站域名出售.[1]
….
NEED TO BUY THIS DOMAIN NAME? MAKE AN OFFER
….
Minimum offer $10,000
….
I wont respond to low offers[.]”
The Panel can only conclude that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the [C]omplainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark … for valuable consideration in excess of [the Respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs,” under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
The third element is 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.
Ilhyung Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2018
1 The Panel understands that the Chinese text is a translation of the English sentence immediately above it.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy