ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Coupang Corp. v. zhao xin lei Case No. D2023-4202 1. The Parties The Complainant is Coupang Corp., Republic of Korea, represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is zhao xin lei, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 10, 2023. On October 10, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 11, 2023, 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 (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 13, 2023, 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 October 13, 2023. On October 13, 2023, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On October 13, 2023, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant's submission. 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 proceedings commenced on October 19, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. page 2 Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 10, 2023. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2023. 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 an e-commerce company based in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The Complainant was founded in 2010 and is the largest online marketplace in Republic of Korea. The Complainant is also the third largest employer in Republic of Korea with over 66,000 employees. The Complainant has offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Seattle, Seoul, Singapore, Shanghai, Silicon Valley, Taipei, and Tokyo. The Complainant provides evidence that it owns international portfolio of trademark registrations for COUPANG, including, but not limited to, Republic of Korea trademark registration number 4102241960000 for the mark COUPANG, registered on January 3, 2012; International trademark registration number 1303695 for the mark COUPANG, registered on May 2, 2016; and Taiwan Province of China trademark registration number 01855148, registered on July 16, 2017. The Panel notes that the Complainant also has an extensive online presence and that its principal domain name is (registered on May 24, 2010) through which it operates its main website and corporate email services. The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2021, and is therefore of a later date than the abovementioned trademarks of the Complainant. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is linked to an active webpage containing gambling and pornographic content and links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark for COUPANG, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith to divert Internet users to the Respondent's webpage containing pornographic material. The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well known and distinctive trademarks as it incorporates the Complainant's COUPANG trademark in its entirety, with the only differing element being the addition of the geographical term "tw" to the disputed domain name. The Complainant also provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active webpage containing gambling and pornographic content, which, the Complainant argues, confers no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the Respondent, and which means that the Respondent is tarnishing the Complainant's trademarks and gaining a commercial benefit through such use of the Complainant's marks. Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Respondent had or can be expected to have had prior notice of the Complainant's trademarks at the time the disputed domain name was registered, since the Complainant registered its trademarks many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and made intensive use of them. The Complainant contends that the use made of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that it constitutes use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the Complainant's and the Complainant's authorized representative's working language is English, that the Complainant would be put to great expense and inconvenience to translate its submissions into Chinese, and the fact that the disputed domain name is registered in the English-language generic top-level domain ".com", rather than, for example, ".cn", and the Complainant argues that this is indicative of the Respondent's intent to target English speaking Internet users. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. 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 (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the letters "tw", which the Complainant claims is an abbreviation for the geographical region Taiwan Province of China, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, upon review of the facts and evidence, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directs to an active webpage containing gambling and pornographic content and links. In the Panel's view, no rights or legitimate interests derive from using a third party trademark to divert Internet users for commercial gain to a pornographic and gambling website, see in this regard also several prior UDRP decisions such as Kudelski S.A. v. duanbingbing, WIPO Case No. D2023-0331; Barnes Europe Consulting Kft., and Heidi BarnesWatson v. jianhua Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-3059; and Seintec Norte, S.L. v. yu Liu, wangluochuanmei, WIPO Case No. D2021-1815. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant's distinctive and well known COUPANG trademarks (see also earlier UDRP decisions in which the respective panels decided that such trademarks are well known such as for instance Coupang Corp. v. JaeYoung Choi, WIPO Case No. D2022-1561). These trademarks predate the registration date of the disputed domain name by many years and the Panel considers that the Respondent has intentionally and opportunistically targeted the Complainant's trademark for COUPANG. The Panel deducts from these efforts to consciously target the Complainant's prior registered trademarks that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owned prior rights in its trademarks for COUPANG. Further, in addition to the Complainant's trademark for COUPANG, the disputed domain name includes the suffix "tw", which is a frequently used geographical abbreviation for Taiwan Province of China. In the Panel's view, these elements clearly indicate bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. page 5 As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the website linked to the disputed domain name currently displays gambling and pornographic content and links, which shows that the Respondent is abusing the Complainant's trademark to mislead and divert Internet users for commercial gain to such website, and thereby also tarnishes the Complainant's marks (see in this regard also previous UDRP decisions such as Kudelski S.A. v. duanbingbing, WIPO Case No. D2023-0331; Barnes Europe Consulting Kft., and Heidi Barnes-Watson v. jianhua Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-3059; and Averitt Express, Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Roman Emec, WIPO Case No. D2018-0249). The Panel concludes from these facts that the Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain to such website, by creating consumer confusion between the website associated with the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks. This constitutes direct evidence of the Respondent's bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. On the basis of the foregoing elements, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Deanna Wong Wai Man/ Deanna Wong Wai Man Sole Panelist Date: December 1, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy