Complainant is RocketGate PR, LLC of Dorado, Puerto Rico, overseas territory of United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), represented by Hatton, Petrie & Stackler APC, United States.
Respondent is Li Jin Dong of Jinan, Shandong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9, 2018. On November 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 13, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. Complainant filed an amended Complaint and requested that English be the language of the proceeding on November 13, 2018. 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 Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 9, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 10, 2018.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on December 14, 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 A. Complainant
Complainant, RocketGate PR, LLC, is a company incorporated in Dorado, Puerto Rico, overseas territory of United States. Found in 2007, Complainant is a leading company “providing electronic processing of credit card transactions and electronic payments via a global computer network”. Based on information provided by Complainant, Complainant processes over USD one billion worth of credit card and other payments every year, on behalf of merchants in the USA, Canada, and Europe (Annex 6 to the Complaint).
Complainant has exclusive rights in ROCKETGATE mark (hereinafter “ROCKETGATE marks”). Complainant is the exclusive owner of ROCKETGATE marks, including a USA trademark registration for ROCKETGATE registered since April 12, 2011 (USA registration number 3943938) (Annex 3 to the Complaint). According to the Complaint and relevant evidence provided by Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering services (such as “payment gateway,” “credit card processing”, “online payment processing”, and “accept credit card payments”), which have been provided by and through Complainant’s website at “” (See Annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint). B. Respondent
Respondent is Li Jin Dong of Jinan, Shandong, China. The disputed domain name was registered on March 13, 2018, long after the ROCKETGATE marks were registered (April 12, 2011). The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ROCKETGATE marks.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. From the evidence presented on the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English. Complainant filed initially its Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) Respondent has demonstrated ready understanding of English. Neither Complainant nor its representative have any familiarity with Chinese.
(2) The disputed domain name is in English;
(3) The content of the website resolved by the disputed domain name is in English (See Annexes 4, 7, and 8 to the Complaint);
(4) The copyright claims on the website resolved by the disputed domain are in English (Annex 8 to the Complaint);
(5) The Privacy Policy on the website resolved by the disputed domain is in English (Annex 7 to the Complaint);
(6) The instructions regarding adverse trademark claims on the website resolved by the disputed domain are in English (Annex 8 to the Complaint).
Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding and did not object to the use of English as the language of the proceeding.
Paragraph 11(a) 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 other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin,WIPO Case No. D2006-0593). The language finally decided by the panel for the proceeding should not be prejudicial to either one of the parties in its abilities to articulate the arguments for the case (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004). WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) further states:
“Noting the aim of conducting the proceedings with due expedition, paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.
Against this background, panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, (iii) any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name, (iv) prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language, (v) prior correspondence between the parties, (vi) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, (vii) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (viii) in cases involving multiple domain names, the use of a particular language agreement for some (but not all) of the disputed domain names, (ix) currencies accepted on the webpage under the disputed domain name, or (x) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement.” (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5.1; see also L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA,WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).
The Panel has taken into consideration the facts that Complainant is a company from the USA, and Complainant will be spared the burden of working in Chinese as the language of the proceeding. The Panel has also taken into consideration the fact that the disputed domain name includes Latin characters and terms “roketgate” and “com” (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang,WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).
On the record, Respondent appears to be located in China and is thus presumably not a native English speaker, but the Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent is likely to have sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the disputed domain name is registered in Latin characters and the English word (“gate”), rather than Chinese script; (b) the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the disputed domain name is “.com”, so the disputed domain name seems to be prepared for users worldwide, particularly English speaking countries; (c) the disputed domain name resolved to website which is in English; and the privacy policy and copyright claims on the website are in English (Annexes 4, 7 and 8 to the Complaint); (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the proceeding in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel also notes that the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a response in either English or Chinese.
Considering these circumstances, the Panel finds the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both Parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the Parties in its ability to articulate the arguments for this case. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding, and the decision will be rendered in English. 6.2. Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) The disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) 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.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a) - (c)), the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ROCKETGATE marks acquired through registration. The ROCKETGATE marks have been registered in the USA since 2011.
The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s trademark ROCKETGATE by only one letter – Respondent has changed the spelling of “RocketGate” by omitting one letter (omitting “c”). This does not eliminate the identity or at least the confusing similarity between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name (Walgreen Co. v. Lin yanxiao / Linyanxiao,WIPO Case No. D2016-1605).
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
Moreover, as to “typosquatting”, section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states:
“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”
As the disputed domain name is a one letter typographical error of Complainant’s ROCKETGATE marks (omitting one letter “c”), the Panel finds the disputed domain name must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting.
Thus, the Panel finds that the one letter typographical error of Complainant’s ROCKETGATE marks is not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the ROCKETGATE marks.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) 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 Complainant’s trademarks.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai,WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 and cases cited therein).
According to the Complaint, Complainant is a leading company “providing electronic processing of credit card transactions and electronic payments via a global computer network”. Complainant processes over USD one billion worth of credit card and other payments every year, on behalf of merchants in the USA, Canada, and Europe (Annex 6 to the Complaint). Complainant has rights in a USA trademark registration for ROCKETGATE since 2011 (which long precede Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (in 2018)).
Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of ROCKETGATE-branded products or services. The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifts the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company,WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the term “roketgate” in its business operation. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ROCKETGATE marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the ROCKETGATE marks.
(ii) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2018, long after the ROCKETGATE marks became internationally known. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROCKETGATE marks.
(iii) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, according to the information provided by Complainant, the website resolved by the disputed domain name is offering services (such as “payment gateway”, “credit card processing”, “online payment processing”, and “accept credit card payments”), which have been provided by and through Complainant’s website “” (See Annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint).
The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing on Respondent lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
Upon the evidence of the circumstances in this case, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. a) Registered in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the ROCKETGATE marks with regard to its products and services. Complainant has registered its ROCKETGATE marks in the USA since 2011 (Annex 3 to the Complaint), and based on information provided by Complainant, Complainant processes over USD one billion worth of credit card and other payments every year, on behalf of merchants in the USA, Canada, and Europe (Annex 6 to the Complaint). It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (in 2018). The Panel therefore finds that the ROCKETGATE mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra.
Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. See also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. b) Used in Bad Faith
Complainant also has adduced evidence to show that by using the confusingly similar disputed domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location”. To establish an “intention for commercial gain” for the purpose of this Policy, evidence is required to indicate that it is “more likely than not” that such intention existed (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Given the widespread reputation of the ROCKETGATE marks, the confusingly similar domain name , as well as the similar services (such as “payment gateway”, “credit card processing”, “online payment processing”, and “accept credit card payments”) provided by and through the website resolved by the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents, created a likelihood of confusion with the ROCKETGATE marks (e.g., the website resolved by disputed domain name offers services (such as “payment gateway”, “credit card processing”, “online payment processing”, and “accept credit card payments”), which have been provided by and through Complainant’s website “” (See Annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint)). Potential partners and end users may be led to believe that the website at the disputed domain name is either Complainant’s site or a site of official authorized partner(s) of Complainant, which it is not. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website to which the disputed domain name resolves are indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all 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.
Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy