The Complainant is Atelier de Production et de Création (A.P.C.), France, represented by Casalonga Avocats, France.
The Respondent is 张巧玲 (Zhang Qiao Ling), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2019. On September 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 9, 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 October 9, 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 October 10, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on October 10, 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 of the Complaint in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2019. The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on November 21, 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 fashion brand in clothes and accessories for men and women with a history of more than 30 years. Its main domain name The Complainant is the proprietor of the following trade mark registrations for A.P.C.: Jurisdiction Trade Mark Registration No. Registration Date International Class(es) France A.P.C. 3370130 July 12, 2005 14, 18 & 25 European Union A.P.C. 006843205 September 22, 2009 14, 18 & 25 European Union A.P.C. 010270941 January 26, 2012 3, 9 & 24 International designating including China A.P.C. 1099666 September 21, 2011 3, 9 & 24 International designating including China A.P.C. 875986 December 16, 2005 25 The disputed domain name The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trade mark. The Complainant contends that as the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to publish a website purportedly offering for sale similar goods to those offered by the Complainant was for the purpose of deceiving potential consumers that it is affiliated in some way to the Complainant. The Complainant therefore claims that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is used to create confusion and mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s website is authorised by or operated by the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that although goods are offered for sale on the Respondent’s website, the sales could not go through, and hence the Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name and website to collect potential consumers’ personal and confidential information (such as credit card information). The Complainant therefore claims that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests for the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules requires the Panel to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and that the Parties are treated equitably and given a fair opportunity to present their respective cases. The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. From the evidence on record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language issue. The Complainant filed its Complaint in English and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that: (a) the disputed domain name is registered in Latin characters, rather than Chinese script; (b) the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trade mark A.P.C. coupled with an ordinary English word, “shining”; and (c) according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves has contents in English. Additionally, the Panel notes that: (a) the Center has notified the Respondent of the proceeding in both Chinese and English; (b) the Respondent has been given the opportunity to present its case in this proceeding and to respond to the issue of the language of the proceeding but chose not to do so; and (c) the Center has informed the Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese. Considering the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to all Parties and is not prejudicial to any of the Parties in their ability to articulate the arguments for this case. The Panel has taken into consideration the fact that to require the Complaint and all supporting documents to be translated into Chinese would, in the circumstances of this case, cause an unnecessary cost burden to the Complainant and would unnecessarily delay the proceeding. In view of all the above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that it shall accept the Complaint and all supporting materials as filed in English, that English shall be the language of the proceeding, and that the decision will be rendered in English. 6.2 Substantive Finding Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in A.P.C. by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark A.P.C. in its entirety (without the punctuation marks). The addition of the English word “shining” does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in this case. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The respondent may establish its rights in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following, without limitation, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to it 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 has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it 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. See Taylor Wimpey PLC, Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited v. honghao internet foshan co, ltd,WIPO Case No. D2013-0974. The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the A.P.C. trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trade mark. There is also no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or have acquired any trade mark rights in the term “apc”. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to publish a website that reproduced the Complainant’s A.P.C. trade mark and offered for sale men and women’s clothing and accessories, fashion goods similar to those offered by the Complainant. This suggests that the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to mislead Internet visitors by creating an affiliation with the Complainant where there is none. Further, the website at the disputed domain name does not accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since the Respondent has failed to respond, the Panel determines that the prima facie case has not been rebutted. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under 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 the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the 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, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. The Complainant has used A.P.C. as its trade mark for more than 30 years, and has an Internet presence for more than 20 years. There is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name given that the website reproduced the Complainant’s A.P.C. trade mark, and purported to offer for sale fashion goods similar to those offered by the Complainant. By adding the word “shining” to the Complainant’s A.P.C. trade mark in a domain name, the Respondent is seeking to create an impression that its website is affiliated to, authorized by the Complainant. The reproduction of the Complainant’s trade mark on the Respondent’s website without also displaying a clear disclaimer of a lack of relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, is indicative of bad faith. According to the Complainant, attempted sale transactions on the Respondent’s website could not go through, which suggests that the Respondent may be using the disputed domain name and website to phish for personal and credit card information. Such use of the disputed domain name not only misleads the public but also causes disruption to the Complainant’s business. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent’s purpose of registering the disputed domain name was to trade on the reputation of the Complainant and its trade mark by diverting Internet users seeking the Complainant’s branded products to its own website for commercial gain. The Panel therefore determines that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. As such, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for mala fide purposes and the Panel finds that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case. The Written Notice was not able to be delivered to the Respondent at the facsimile numbers and postal address confirmed by the Registrar, which may suggest that the Respondent had provided false contact details at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith. In view of the above finding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and taking into account all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 Sok Ling MOI
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy