The Complainant is Stylight GmbH of Munich, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.
The Respondent is Zheng Luo of Guangzhou, China. 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 June 22, 2018. On June 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 June 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 20, 2018.
The Center appointed Carol Anne Been as the sole panelist in this matter on August 1, 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 Stylight GmbH is a German company that offers fashion from over 100 online shops. The Complainant was established in 2008 and claims that over 6 million people around the world now use its platforms. The Complainant offers its services at “” as well as several domain names using “stylight” with country code Top-Level Domains. The Complainant has registered STYLIGHT as a trademark in the European Union (European Union trademark number 007416051) and in an International Registration (International registration number 1011334), both in 2009. The International Registration covers several countries, including China.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2018. The page posted at the disputed domain name is a GoDaddy parking page, with links to third-party websites.
The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it owns trademark rights in STYLIGHT, that its mark is highly distinctive, and that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name STYLIGHT; the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its mark; there is no evidence that the Respondent has used or demonstrably prepared to use a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services; and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Lastly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with a term obviously connected to the Complainant’s trademark despite having no connection with the Complainant, and uses the disputed domain name for a placeholder website with advertising links for third-party websites, to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s sites and gain traffic to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is responsible for the content available at the website at the disputed domain name, which content is provided by the Registrar. Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STYLIGHT trademark.
The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership and use of trademark registrations for the mark STYLIGHT. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that it owns rights in the mark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entire trademark of the Complainant, without alteration. The addition of the Top-Level Domain is a requirement of domain name registration and can be disregarded in addressing confusing similarity. See, e.g., Eveready Battery Company Inc. v. Michael Behrens,WIPO Case No. D2000-1261, citing Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market, 202 F.3d 489, 498 (2d Cir. 2000).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant alleges that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark in any domain name or otherwise, that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use or preparations to use a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the mark STYLIGHT.
The Respondent has not responded to this contention.
In the absence of any response from the Respondent claiming rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant alleges that registration of the disputed domain name using a term that is obviously connected with the Complainant, where the Respondent has no connection to the Complainant, shows registration in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that use of the disputed domain name with a parking website provided by the Respondent’s registrar, which contains advertising links for third-party websites, shows bad faith use of the disputed domain name to gain traffic from diversion of Internet users for commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
The fact that the disputed domain name incorporates a term that is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive and widely used and registered mark, in the absence of contrary evidence, suggests that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with the intent to trade off the rights associated with the Complainant’s mark.
Further, the Respondent appears to use the disputed domain name intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s parked page at the disputed domain name due to a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source or sponsorship of the disputed domain name or the page found at the disputed domain name. The Respondent may not disclaim responsibility for the advertising links on the landing page at the disputed domain name that is provided by the registrar. See Owens Corning v. NA,WIPO Case No. D2007-1143 (“6.17 … the Panel finds the use of GoDaddy’s domain name parking service was a bad faith use of the Domain Name.”). The Panel may infer from the facts that the Respondent knew of the Complainant or its mark, and intended to use the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to its website. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 (“Respondent’s knowledge and intention may be determined by common sense inferences from circumstantial evidence.”)
The Respondent has not responded to these contentions, thus failing to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case against the Respondent. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Carol Anne Been
Sole Panelist
Date: August 14, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy