The Complainant is Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China, represented by Thomsen Trampedach GmbH, Denmark.
The Respondent is Hong Sheng Zhou, Zhou Hong Sheng, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed regarding two domain names with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2019. On October 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 21 and 22, 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 25, 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 28, 2019, in which the Complainant only kept the disputed domain name 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 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 28, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 29, 2019. The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue 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 operates an Internet search engine via the domain name The disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its rights in the trademark or service mark and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark or service mark. The Panel notes that, long before the registration of the disputed domain name The disputed domain name is On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions as stated above, the Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances which can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference. Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name According to the registration information of the disputed domain name provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is located in China, where “baidu” is one of the most well-known marks on the Internet. Since the Respondent is not likely to have registered coincidentally an Internet domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s BAIDU mark, its bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name can be proved. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of this case does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. Moreover, the Registrar of the disputed domain name provides that “[…]@hotmail.com” is the Respondent’s contact email address. Apart from the disputed domain name, the Complainant proves that the Respondent registered with the email “[…]@hotmail.com” hundreds of domain names, including Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has successfully proven 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 disputed domain name, Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: December 23, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy