The Complainant is Arthur Metz, France, represented by AARPI Scan Avocats, France.
The Respondent is 王先生 (Wang Xian Sheng), China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 22, 2021. On December 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 5, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
On January 5, 2022, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On January 5, 2022, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 1, 2022.
The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2022. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant, Arthur Metz, is a leading French wholesale wine and spirits merchants worldwide. The company’s business involves sales as well as wine growing and production.
The Complainant has an extensive global portfolio of trade marks consisting of the term “Arthur Metz”, including the following:
- China Trade Mark Registration for ARTHUR METZ, No. 17086135, in Class 33, registered on May 21, 2017, and is valid at the time of this Decision;
- France Trade Mark Registration for ARTHUR METZ, No. 1668966, in Class 33, filed on May 29, 1991, and is valid at the time of this Decision;
- International Trade Mark Registration for ARTHUR METZ, No. 578058, in Class 33, registered on November 6, 1991, and is valid at the time of this Decision.
The Complainant also owns the domain name
The disputed domain name was registered on November 2, 2021.
According to the screenshot provided by the Complainant, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website indicating that the domain is for sale and offering wedding dresses and men’s suits. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the ARTHUR METZ trade mark.
The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s ARTHUR METZ trade marks, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Complainant also asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the ARTHUR METZ trade mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any connection to the ARTHUR METZ trade mark in any way. The Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant also claims that it is highly likely that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its well-known trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant further alleges that by offering the disputed domain name for sale and directing the website to wedding dresses and suits, the Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial purposes. Such use proves the Respondent’s bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the ProceedingIn accordance with 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.”
In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Hence, the default language of the proceeding should be Chinese.
However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, asserting inter alia that:
- The disputed domain name was registered in Latin characters rather than Chinese script;
- The website associated to the disputed domain name is partly written in English; and
- If the proceeding were to be conducted in Chinese, the time and costs involved in translating the Complaint would be unfair to the Complainant.
The Respondent was notified in both Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding and the Complaint, but did not comment on the language of the proceeding or submit any response.
Considering the circumstances in this case, the Panel has determined that the language of the proceeding shall be English, and the Panel has issued this decision in English. The Panel further finds that such determination would not cause any prejudice to either Party and would ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the ARTHUR METZ trade marks in many territories worldwide.
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, a hyphen, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The gTLD is a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark ARTHUR METZ in its entirety. The Panel also finds that the mere addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks.
Thus, the disputed domain name should be regarded as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARTHUR METZ trade marks.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the ARTHUR METZ trade mark and in demonstrating that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar thereto.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsPursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once a prima facie case is made, the respondent bears the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Thus, the Complainant has established its prima facie case with satisfactory evidence.
The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, as of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s ARTHUR METZ mark in its entirety. When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 2, 2021, the Complainant’s ARTHUR METZ mark was already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. A simple online search of the words “arthur metz” clearly indicates that the results are linked to the Complainant and its activities. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s ARTHUR METZ mark when it registered the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent’s adoption of the trade mark ARTHUR METZ was a mere coincidence.
As to the use of the disputed domain name, evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name once resolved to a website indicating that the disputed domain name is for sale and offering wedding dresses and men’s suits. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The fact that the disputed domain name currently links to an inactive page does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding considering the circumstances of this case. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: February 22, 2022