The Complainant is LB Online & Export Pty Ltd trading as Love to Dream Online & Exports, Australia, represented by Strategic IP Information Pte Ltd., Singapore.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Xiaobo Song, 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 16, 2019. On October 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 16, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 23, 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 October 24, 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 October 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2019. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on November 28, 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 innovative sleep systems for babies under the trademarks LOVE TO DREAM and SWADDLE UP. The Complainant has used “Love to Dream” as a business name for over 5 years. The Complainant distributes its products in more than 34 countries, including Australia, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States and Europe. The Complainant through its founder has rights in the trademarks LOVE TO DREAM, registered on September 19, 2019 and SWADDLE UP, registered on September 25, 2019. The Complainant has used the trademarks LOVE TO DREAM and SWADDLE UP for over 8 years, and the marks remain in use worldwide. The Complainant is the owner of the domain name The Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 30, 2019. The Domain Name resolves to a website that offers what seems to be the Complainant’s products at discounted prices. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has documented trademark registrations in the Complaint. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name reproduces the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark and trading name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Domain Name resolves to a website that offers the Complainant’s products at discounted prices. It uses the Complainant’s brand imagery and copyright images without the Complainant’s authorization. The Complainant believes the products offered from the website are counterfeit. At least one consumer has contacted the Complainant to report a poor-quality counterfeit. Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent use described above is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant also argues that it cannot be a coincidence that the Respondent chose and registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s official website’s domain name as the Complainant has a well-established reputation in the LOVE TO DREAM trademark through its use throughout the world in relation to swaddles for babies. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant through its founder has established rights in the trademark LOVE TO DREAM. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. For the purposes of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online”. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name resolves to a website that without authorization from the Complainant offers products that purports to be from the Complainant. There is evidence in the casefile suggesting some or all of the products are counterfeits. Such use is obviously not bona fide, rather evidence of lack of rights or legitimate interests, and of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence and use of the Domain Name, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Domain Name registration. The fact that the Domain Name has been used for unauthorized sale of the Complainant’s products, including sale of counterfeits, further points to bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: December 9, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy