The Complainant is Ma Belle Jewellery Company Limited, China, represented by Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, China.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States of America / wen di, 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 July 5, 2021. On July 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 6, 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 July 6, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 9, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 July 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 5, 2021. The Center appointed 陈长杰 Jacob (Changjie) Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 16, 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 retail jewelry company from Hong Kong, China and operates physical retail chain shops. The Complainant has marketed products under the brand Ma Belle since 1993. The Complainant owns registrations of MA BELLE trademarks in Hong Kong, China and Malaysia, including China Trademark Registration No. 3320037 registered on April 28, 2004, and China Trademark Registration No. 6313905 registered on June 28, 2010. The Complainant also owns registration for MABELLE trademark in Hong Kong, China Trademark Registration No. 301472724 registered on November 11, 2009. The Complainant owns domain names incorporating its MA BELLE trademark, including According to the information disclosed by the Registrar, the Respondent is wen di, China. The disputed domain name is The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MA BELLE trademark. The addition of the term “cn” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s MA BELLE trademark. The Complainant further contends that the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its MA BELLE trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the MA BELLE trademark. Besides, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns rights upon registrations of MA BELLE trademark in China and Hong Kong, China, which predate the registration date of the disputed domain name (June 7, 2014). The Complainant has successfully established its rights upon MA BELLE trademark. It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” as a standard registration requirement is disregarded in the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s MA BELLE trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s MA BELLE trademark in its entirety. The addition of “cn” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the MA BELLE trademark and the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MA BELLE trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The burden of production on this element hence shifts to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. In this case, given the Respondent’s failure to submit a response to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. See Construction Skills Certification Scheme Limited v. Mara Figueira,WIPO Case No. D2010-0947. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Respondent directs the disputed domain name to a website which uses the marks identical or highly similar to the formative marks of “Mabelle” and “玛贝尔” owned by the Complainant. Besides, the contents of the Complainant’s official website at “www.mabelle.com” have been substantially copied and used on the website that is directed by the dispute domain name. The nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The Panel thus views that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the website associated with the disputed domain name is using the MA BELLE trademark and substantially copying contents from the Complainant’s official website, the Panel holds that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its MA BELLE trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Thus, without any rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is indicative of bad faith. Further, the Panel observes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is highly similar with the Complainant’s official website. The Panel views that with the clear understanding of the Complainant’s MA BELLE trademark and the disputed domain name’s value to the Complainant, the Respondent has the intention to mislead Internet users to visit the website directed by the disputed domain name and profit from the visit. Therefore, the Panel holds that the Respondent’s purpose of registering and using the disputed domain name is to gain commercial profit from misleading Internet users to visit the associated website with the disputed domain name. For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was 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 陈长杰 Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole Panelist
Date: August 30, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy