Complainant is Cong Ty Trach Nhiem Huu Han Dau Tu Thuong Mai Trang Tien (Trang Tien Plaza Co., Ltd), Viet Nam, represented by IPMAX Law Firm, Viet Nam.
Respondent is Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / Dang Ngoc Hoa, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 26, 2021, 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 Complainant on May 27, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 1, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 22, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 23, 2021. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 According to the Complaint, Trang Tien Plaza is a famous retail mall in Hanoi, Viet Nam. Numerous famous brands, including Chanel, Rolex, Cartier, and Versace, operate retail businesses at this mall. Since February 1, 2002, the mall has operated under the name Trang Tien Plaza. Complainant is the manager of the mall. Complainant owns various trademarks for TRANG TIEN PLAZA, including Vietnamese Reg. No. 4-0084067-000 (registered on July 6, 2007). There is evidence in the record that Complainant has used the trademark TRANG TIEN PLAZA to identify and distinguish its mall and attendant services since 2002, and that the TRANG TIEN PLAZA trademark has achieved a fair degree of notoriety in the public mind. The Domain Name was registered on July 16, 2006. There is no evidence in the record that the Domain Name has ever resolved to an active website. According to Complainant, Respondent’s street address indicates that he lives less than two kilometers from Trang Tien Plaza. On October 15, 2020, Respondent sent Complainant an unsolicited email to Complainant, in which Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for USD 50,000. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has established all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark TRANG TIEN PLAZA through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s mark. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your 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 The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to explain or prove his bona fides, if any, with respect to the Domain Name. The undisputed record in this case shows only that Respondent has not made any use of the Domain Name for 15 years, and that Respondent sent an unsolicited email to Complainant offering to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for USD 50,000. Such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests vis-à-vis the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Based on the undisputed record, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent, who lives less than two kilometers away from the Trang Tien Plaza, was aware of the TRANG TIEN PLAZA trademark at the time he registered the Domain Name. With respect to bad faith use, the Panel finds that Respondent’s unsolicited offer to sell the Domain Name for USD 50,000 constitutes bad faith use within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Robert A. Badgley
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy