The Complainant is BCBG IP Holdings LP, United States of America, represented by Tucker & Latifi, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is 陈晓梅 (chen xiao mei), 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 November 20, 2020. On November 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 30, 2020, 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 December 1, 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 in English on December 4, 2020. On December 1, 2020, 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 December 7, 2020. 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 December 16, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 6, 2021. The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2021. 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 well know fashion brand, BCBG, founded in 1989 by designers Max Azaria and Lubov Azaria. BCBG is the abbreviation for the French phrase “bon chic, bon genre” which translates as “good style, good attitude”. The BCBG trade mark is registered all over the world. The earliest trade mark registration submitted in evidence dates back to 1985 (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant maintains an etailing site at “www.bcbg.com”. The Domain Name was registered on December 4, 2017. The Domain Name is connected to a website which is an online store that mimics the Complainant’s online retail store and seeks to represent itself as an “outlet” for genuine BCBG branded apparel (the “Website”). The Complainant believes these products to be counterfeits. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Language of the Proceeding The Rules, paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain name, the language of the 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. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. The Complainant submits that the language of the proceeding should be English for the following reasons: - the Domain Name is in English; - the Website is entirely in English, which suggests that the Respondent understands English and therefore would not be in any way prejudiced if the proceeding is conducted in English; and, - the Complainant would be put to great expense and inconvenience to have to translate the Complaint and its evidence, which would cause undue delay. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s request and in fact has failed to file a response. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner. In this case, the Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in Chinese. The Panel notes that all of the communications from the Center to the Parties were transmitted in both Chinese and English. In all the circumstances, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trade mark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. In this case the Domain Name contains the Complainant’s distinctive Trade Mark in its entirety together with the descriptive term “eoutlet”. The addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which in this case is “.com”. It is viewed as a standard registration requirement (section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interests, the UDRP panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant. The Complainant contends that it has not authorised, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trade Mark in the Domain Name or for any other purpose. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. It would appear that the products on sale on the Website are counterfeit goods. There can be no legitimate interests in the sale of counterfeits (see Wellquest International, Inc. v. Nicholas Clark,WIPO Case No. D2005-0552 and Farouk Systems, Inc. v. QYM,WIPO Case No. D2009-1572). The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Name has been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the Trade Mark when it registered the Domain Name given the Trade Mark was registered prior to registration of the Domain Name. Further the Website purports to be either the Complainant’s website or one that is authorised or connected to the Complainant. The Trade Mark features prominently on the Website and the goods being sold purport to be the goods of the Complainant. It is therefore implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows: “Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark.” The very incorporation of the Trade Mark in the Domain Name and the display of the Trade Mark and the offer for sale of non‑genuine BCBG products on the Website confirm the Respondent’s awareness of the Trade Mark. The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the Domain Name are also significant factors to consider. The Panel finds that registration is in bad faith. The Panel also finds that the actual use of the Domain Name is in bad faith. The products offered for sale on the Website are likely to be counterfeit BCBG products. The use by a respondent of a domain name which includes a well-known trade mark to resolve to a website which offers and sells counterfeit products under that trade mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. (See Burberry Limited v. Jonathan Schefren,WIPO Case No. D2008-1546 and Prada S.A. v. Domains for Life,WIPO Case No. D2004-1019). The content of the Website is calculated to give the impression that it has been authorized by or connected to the Complainant when this is not the case. The Website was set up to deliberately mislead Internet users that it is connected to, authorised by or affiliated to the Complainant. From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s website is and the products sold on it are those of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant. The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Karen Fong
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy