The Complainant is Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondents are yun yun wang, China, and jun dong wang, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , and are all registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2019. On July 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 17, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrants and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 22, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 24, 2019.
On July 22, 2019, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On July 24, 2019, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceeding. On July 30, 2019, the Center send an email communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the consolidation of multiple respondents.
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 Respondents, in English and Chinese, of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on July 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2019. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on August 20, 2019.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is the oldest French deposit bank, established in 1859.
The Complainant is the owner of registrations in several jurisdictions worldwide for the trade mark CIC (the “Trade Mark”), including French trade mark registration No. 1358524, with a registration date of June 10, 1986; and European trade mark registration No. 011355328, with a registration date of March 26, 2013.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain name registrations comprising the Trade Mark, including and .
In at least three previous UDRP decisions, the Trade Mark has been found to be well known in respect of banking services. B. Respondent
The Respondents are apparently residents of China. C. The Disputed Domain Names
The disputed domain names were all registered on the same date, March 3, 2019. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Names
The disputed domain names have been used in respect of the same, Chinese language website with adult (pornographic) content (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation of Respondents
Previous UDRP decisions suggest that consolidation of multiple respondents may be appropriate, under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names or the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, where consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties, and where procedural efficiency supports consolidation (see section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
In the present proceeding, the Complainant contends as follows:
(i) The disputed domain names resolve to the same Website;
(ii) The disputed domain names were registered on the same date;
(iii) The Respondents are based in China and the contact email address and telephone number for the registrants of the disputed domain names are the same; and
(iv) The disputed domain names were registered with the same Registrar.
The Respondents did not file a response and did not file any submissions with respect to this issue.
In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the evidence relied upon by the Complainant supports the conclusion that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names.
In all the circumstances, the Panel determines, under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, that consolidation of the Respondents is procedurally efficient and equitable to all the Parties, is consistent with the Policy and Rules, and comports with prior relevant UDRP decisions in respect of this issue. The Respondents are referred to hereinafter as the “Respondent”. 6.2 Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement.
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules 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 order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding.
The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English, for several reasons, including the following:
(i) The disputed domain names comprise Latin characters (not Chinese characters) and English language wording;
(ii) The Registrar’s website has both Chinese and English language versions;
(iii) English is a common language in international business;
(iv) The Complainant is not able to communicate in Chinese;
(v) There is no evidence that the Respondent has no knowledge of English; and
(vi) Translation of the Complaint would be unfair to the Complainant, as it would require translation services that would cause supplemental costs, whereas the Complainant has already incurred the costs of filing the proceeding.
The Panel would have accepted a response in Chinese, but the Respondent did not file any response nor any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.
The Panel considers the grounds relied upon by the Complainant support at least a prima facie case that the Respondent is conversant in English. The Panel notes also that the Respondent has chosen not to contest this proceeding; and is mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.
In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore finds it is not foreseeable that the Respondent would be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7) together with the words “easy” and “mailing”.
Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use 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) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the 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 the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have been used to offer and promote pornographic content for commercial gain, via the Website.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the manner of use of the disputed domain names highlighted in Section 6.3.B above, the Panel finds that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy