The Complainant is Anglo American PLC of London, United Kingdom, represented by Spoor & Fisher Attorneys, South Africa.
The Respondent is Zhendong Chen of Jinhua, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2019. On January 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 17, 2019, 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 January 21, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 2019. 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 large, well-known multinational mining company with offices and operations throughout the world. It has traded under its ANGLO AMERICAN brand for over a century – since its founding in 1917. Of particular significance to this proceeding, given the location of the Respondent, the Complainant opened a representative office in China in 2002. By 2005, the Complainant's sales to China exceeded USD 2 billion. The Complainant has registered its ANGLO AMERICAN trademark throughout the world. In particular, the Complainant registered its ANGLO AMERICAN trademark in Latin script as well as the Mandarin translation in Chinese script in China (See, e.g., China Reg. Nos. 3459470 and 8265560, issued October 7, 2004 and May 7, 2011, respectively.)
The Respondent is located in China and registered the disputed domain name on May 6, 2014. As of the date of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name is parked with a basic landing page consisting of a picture of a mobile phone and no apparent goods or services offering. According to information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent has registered over 600 domain names, all in the “.mobi” Top-Level Domain, many of which consist of well-known trademarks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service 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.
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the mark ANGLO AMERICAN. The mark is subject to registrations that predate registration of the disputed domain name, and has been in widespread use for over a century. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and is in this manner identical or confusingly similar to the ANGLO AMERICAN mark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.mobi” may be disregarded for the purpose of comparing the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant will be successful under this element of the UDRP if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainant has shown that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, and has also shown that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has also shown that the Respondent has not developed anything other than a basic landing page at the disputed domain name, and is therefore not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second UDRP element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Because the Complainant’s ANGLO AMERICAN mark is well-known (including in China, where the Respondent – having experience registering well-known trademarks as domain names – is located), it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s ANGLO AMERICAN mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Also in light of these circumstances, and given that the Respondent has declined to address the merits of the Complaint, the Panel can conceive of no use to which the disputed domain name could be put which could not be considered registration and use in bad faith. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith in terms of the UDRP, and finds in favor of the Complainant on this element. 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.
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: March 4, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy