The Complainant is Château Lafite Rothschild, France, represented by Plasseraud IP, France.
The Respondent is Chen Yuan (陈源), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2020. On March 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2020, 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 March 13, 2020 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 March 18, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 16, 2020, the Complainant requested English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment. 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 in Chinese, of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 25, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2020. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on April 27, 2020. 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 French company active in the wine production industry, with its headquarter in Paris. The Complainant claims that it was one of four wine-producing châteaux of Bordeaux originally awarded First Growth status in the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855, and it is currently one of the world’s most prestigious and renowned red wines. The Complainant also claims it has developed a global business. In China, the Long Dai vineyard was created around 10 years ago, and Lafite is a well-known wine brand with 50,000 bottles imported from the Complainant’s estate each year. The Complainant owns some trademarks for LAFITE, including, for example, the Chinese trademark registration number 14123158, registered on April 21, 2015 and number 14123134, registered on May 21, 2016. Moreover, the Complainant and its subsidiaries also owns various domain names, including, for instance, The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks for LAFITE, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that its trademarks are well established and famous. The Complainant particularly submits that there are no justifications for the use of its trademarks in the disputed domain name, and contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and constitutes registration and use in bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant claims the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name on pornographic services, which also tarnished the reputation of its LAFITE trademarks. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, 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. The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese (though the Panel notes the Complainant claimed it is in English earlier), and the Complaint is filed in English. On March 13, 2020, the Center notified the Complainant that the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English on March 16, 2020. The Respondent did not make any comments on the language of the proceeding and did not submit any arguments on the merits. The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English; the fact that all communications from the Center have been sent in English and Chinese to the Parties, and the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding and did not submit arguments on the merits (while it had the right to do so in Chinese or English); and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted delay and costs for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Discussion and Findings on the Merits The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark LAFITE based on its intensive use and registration of the same as a trademark globally. Moreover, as to confusing similarity, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark LAFITE, followed by the descriptive part “-entertainment”. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“.com” in this case) is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and may as such be disregarded by the Panel. See in this regard the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.1. Moreover, the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, states: “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, 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 also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard McLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark, and the trademark is clearly recognizable in it. It is the Panel’s view that the addition of the merely descriptive component “-entertainment” after the Complainant’s trademark does not avert the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel holds that the Complainant makes out a prima facie case that that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not, and has never been, an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor of the Complainant, and is not making legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Complainant’s trademarks. As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). However, no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. Moreover, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directed to an active and explicit pornographic website, which also contained numerous advertisings and links to external websites on dating, online gambling and sexual services (before it was taken offline). This shows the Respondent’s intention to divert consumers for commercial gain to its website linked to the disputed domain name, by taking unfair advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks for LAFITE. Currently, the disputed domain name leads to an error page. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name, being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant (see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1), and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Based on the foregoing, the Panel considers that none of the circumstances of rights or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel holds that the registration of the disputed domain name was clearly intended to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks, by using such trademarks to mislead and divert consumers to the disputed domain name. Given the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, including in the Respondent’s home jurisdiction China, the Panel holds that the registration of the disputed domain name, clearly targeting the Complainant’s well-known trademarks, was obtained in bad faith. Moreover, even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owned registered trademarks in LAFITE and used these extensively. In the Panel’s view, the preceding elements clearly establish the bad faith of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name. As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the disputed domain name directed to an active and explicit pornographic website, which also contained numerous advertisings and links to external websites on dating, online gambling and sexual services (before it was taken offline). This indicates the Respondent’s clear bad faith in freeriding the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation to attract Internet users for the Respondent’s commercial gain. On the date of this decision, the disputed domain name links to an inactive webpage. In this regard, the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3 provides: “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or ‘coming soon’ page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding”. The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case, and in particular: the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademarks, the high degree of distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the Respondent’s use of the website linked to the disputed domain name (before it was taken offline) as a pornographic website for commercial gain. Based on the foregoing elements, the Panel rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent has used, and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Respondent failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under 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 Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: May 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy