The Complainant is Cintas Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, United States.
The Respondent is Bing Die Chen, Chen Bing Die, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2019. On October 14, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 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 sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 23, 2019, requesting that the Complainant submit an amendment to the Complaint to reflect the correct registrar. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 31, 2019. 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, and the proceedings commenced on November 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was November 26, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 27, 2019. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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 designs, manufactures, and implements corporate identity uniform programs, and provides entrance mats, restroom supplies, tile and carpet cleaning products, promotional products, first aid, safety, and fire protection products and services for businesses throughout North America. The Complainant uses its CINTAS trademark on and in connection with the entirety of its offering of goods and services. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including United States trademark registration number 0985550 for CINTAS in a stylized script, registered on June 4, 1974 and specifying goods in international class 25, and Chinese trademark registrations numbers 10568394 and 10568396, both for CINTAS in a stylized script, both registered on April 28, 2013 and specifying goods in international classes 9 and 16, respectively. All these trademark registrations remain current. The Complainant also registered the domain name The Respondent “Bing Die Chen” is named in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as the domain name registrant while “Chen Bing Die” is named as the registrant organization. Both names appear to refer to the same individual resident in China. The disputed domain name was registered on June 19, 2019. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website in Chinese promoting gambling services and displaying what appeared to be hyperlinks to other websites offering gambling services. At the time of this Decision the disputed domain name no longer resolves to any active website; rather, it is passively held. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CINTAS trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s CINTAS mark, with only the addition of the descriptive term “corp”. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s first use preceded the date on which the disputed domain name was registered. Neither the Respondent nor, upon information and belief, anyone affiliated with the Respondent, is commonly known by the name “cintascorp” and the Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to sites that relate to online gambling and other activities. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the complainant must prove each of the following elements in respect of the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CINTAS trademark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the CINTAS trademark as its initial and only distinctive element. The disputed domain name also includes the element “corp” which is a common abbreviation for the word “corporation” and, as such, does not dispel the confusing similarity with the CINTAS trademark. The CINTAS trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name also includes a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, specifically “.com”, which is a technical requirement of registration. A gTLD suffix is disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the Policy unless it has some impact beyond its technical function, which is not the case here. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (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 trademark 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 trademark or service mark at issue. As regards the first circumstance set out above, the disputed domain name formerly resolved to a website promoting gambling services and displaying what appeared to be hyperlinks to other websites offering gambling services. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CINTAS trademark and, minus the gTLD suffix, it is an abbreviated form of the Complainant’s name “Cintas Corporation”. Nothing in the content of the website suggested any reason for the choice of the disputed domain name other than to attract Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website or its products. At the time of this Decision the disputed domain name is passively held. The Panel finds that these are not uses of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As regards the second circumstance, the Registrar’s verification email indicates that the Respondent’s name is “Bing Die Chen” or “Chen Bing Die”, not “cintascorp” or even “cintas”. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. As regards the third circumstance, the disputed domain name resolved to a website promoting gambling services and it is now passively held. Neither use is a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. In view of the above circumstances, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not rebut that prima facie case because he did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” The disputed domain name was registered in 2019, years after the Complainant registered its trademark, including in China, where the Respondent is resident. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s CINTAS trademark as its only distinctive element. The disputed domain name has no apparent meaning other than as an abbreviated form of the Complainant’s name “Cintas Corporation” plus a gTLD suffix. Nothing in the Respondent’s website content had any apparent connection to the disputed domain name. This all gives the Panel reason to find that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name was used to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CINTAS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved. This use was intentional and for the commercial gain of the Respondent, or the operators of the gambling websites that appeared to be hyperlinked to the Respondent’s website, or both. In each of these scenarios, the facts fall within the circumstance described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel notes that the use of the Respondent’s website has changed since the Complaint was filed and that it no longer resolves to any active website. This change of use does not alter the Panel’s conclusion and may be a further indicator of bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in 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 Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: December 19, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy