The Complainant is Sandro Andy, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Zhang Gen Sheng, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2019. On July 25, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 2019, 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 the Complainant on July 29, 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 in English on July 29, 2019.
On July 29, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on July 29, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2019.
The Center appointed Rachel Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on September 3, 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
Founded in 1984, the Complainant is a French clothing and accessories company and is part of the SMCP group of fashion brands. The Complainant has sold fashion articles for women since 1984 and for men since 2007 in France and other countries around the world. The Complainant has 646 points of sale in 39 countries.
The Complainant holds worldwide registrations of the SANDRO trade mark, including International Trade Mark Registration No. 827287, registered on March 4, 2004 in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 34; European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 008772568, registered on July 27, 2010 in classes 14, 18 and 25; French Trade Mark Registration No. 3244120, registered on September 4, 2003 in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 34. The Complainant is also the owner of domain names containing the term “sandro”, such as , registered on September 25, 2003 and , registered on September 16, 2002.
The Respondent is a Chinese individual named Zhang Gen Sheng.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 31, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website bearing the SANDRO trade mark and offering clothing and other fashion articles. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SANDRO trade mark. The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark in its entirety. The addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to make any use of its SANDRO trade mark, or apply to register the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website on which appears the Complainant’s distinctive sign, SANDRO, and from which products identical to those of the Complainant’s are offered. Such use cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods.
The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant registered the SANDRO trade mark long before the registration date of the disputed domain name. From the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its SANDRO trade mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural Issues
A. Language of the Proceeding
The Panel must first address the language of the proceeding. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement unless otherwise agreed by the parties, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regarded to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The panel may choose to write a decision in either language, or request translation of either party’s submissions.
In this case, the Registrar has confirmed to the Center that the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. However, the Complainant has requested that English be adopted as the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. The Center proceeded to issue its case-related communication to the Parties in both English and Chinese. The Center decided to accept the Complainant as filed in English, accept the Respondent’s response in either English or Chinese, and appoint a Panel familiar with both languages.
The Panel having considered the circumstances finds that English shall be the language of this proceeding. The reasons are set out below:
(a) The Complainant is a company incorporated in France. Requiring the Complainant to submit Complaint in Chinese would lead to delay and increase unreasonable burden of the Complainant;
(b) English is not the native language of either Party;
(c) The Respondent’s choice of Latin characters for the disputed domain name, and the fact that the associated website content includes some English words, indicates some fluency with the English language;
(d) Even if the Respondent does not possess a sufficient command of English to understand the Compliant, there were ample opportunities for the Respondent to raise an objection. The Center notified the Parties in English and Chinese of the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceeding, but the Respondent did not protest against this request; and
(e) The Respondent has failed to reply the Complainant’s contentions. The Complaint has been submitted in English. No foreseeable procedural benefit may be served by requiring Chinese to be used. On the other hand, the proceeding may proceed expeditiously in English. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns worldwide registrations of the SANDRO trade mark, including International Trade Mark Registration No. 827287, registered on March 4, 2004; European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 008772568, registered on July 27, 2010; French Trade Mark Registration No. 3244120, registered on September 4, 2003. These registrations cover, amongst others, goods such as outerwear and underwear for men, women and children, trousers, T-shirts, ready-to-wear clothing in class 25.
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark is wholly encompassed within the disputed domain name. In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Although the disputed domain name also contains the word “epidemie”, the SANDRO word mark remains recognizable within the disputed domain name. As such, the addition of “epidemie” here does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The inclusion of “.com”, a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “is a technical requirement of every domain name registration”. See Groupon, Inc. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Vashti Scalise,WIPO Case No. D2016-2087.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Then Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by it in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for nor has any business with the Respondent. The Respondent is not licensed or authorized to make any use of the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark, or apply to register the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name with intention to mislead the public, which could not be considered as a bona fide offering of goods.
Pursuant to the Policy, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent failed to submit a reply to rebut the Complainant’s contentions.
The Panel notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering goods or services or making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the Respondent prominently displays the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark and purportedly offers SANDRO branded products with the intention to attract commercial gain. See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant satisfied the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant owns worldwide registrations of the SANDRO trade mark. The earliest registration listed by the Complainant predates the registration date of the disputed domain name by fifteen years.
The Complainant operates 62 physical stores in China. The search results using the key word “SANDRO” on the Baidu search engine directs Internet users to links containing information about the Complainant and its SANDRO branded products, which indicates that the Complainant and its SANDRO trade mark have gained a certain reputation and recognition in China. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which prominently displays the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark and claims to offer the Complainant’s SANDRO branded products. This evidences the fact that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its SANDRO trade marks.
The Respondent displays “SANDRO PARIS” on the top of the associated website and presents the content mainly in the French language, to mislead Internet users into thinking that the Respondent’s website is operated by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent uses the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark in the title of each product on offer. This also demonstrates that the Respondent has the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites or location or of products and services.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. See Barclays Bank PLC v. PrivacyP / Sylvia Paras,WIPO Case No. D2011-2011.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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.
Rachel Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: September 17, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy