The Complainant is Marques de l'Etat de Monaco, SAM / Office des emissions des timbres-poste de Monaco, Monaco, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Peizhi Yu, 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 June 15, 2021. On June 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 2021, 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 June 17, 2021, 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 June 17, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on June 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 15, 2021. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is the official government post office in Monaco. The Complainant is the owner of trade mark registration No. 1283874 for the trade mark OFFICE DES TIMBRES PRINCIPAUTÉ DE MONACO with a registration date of October 29, 2015; and trade mark registration No. 1069254 for the trade mark MONACO, with a registration date of December 1, 2010. The Complainant has also used the name “Office des Emissions de Timbres-Poste” and its acronym “OETP” continuously since 1937. In addition, the Complainant has since October 14, 2003 been the owner of the domain name The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on May 4, 2021. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent in respect of a Chinese language website with commercial links to pornographic and gambling websites (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered and unregistered trade marks; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its trade marks acquired through use and/or registration. The Complainant has established registered trade mark rights in OFFICE DES TIMBRES PRINCIPAUTÉ DE MONACO and MONACO. The Panel finds that the Complainant also possesses unregistered trade mark rights in respect of the name “Office des Emissions de Timbres-Poste” and its acronym “OETP”, used continuously by the Complainant since 1937. The disputed domain name incorporates dominant features of the Complainant’s trade marks – namely, the acronym OETP and the word MONACO (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). Disregarding the absence of a hyphen, it is identical to the Complainant’s domain name The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Complainant’s trade marks. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the Respondent has made use of the disputed domain name, for commercial gain, by providing links to pornographic and gambling related websites on the Website. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the evidence of the Respondent’s use of the Website in the manner described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 5, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy