ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Hong Kong Sun Rise Trading Limited v. 朱杰 (jie zhu) Case No. D2024-1619 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hong Kong Sun Rise Trading Limited, Hong Kong, China, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is 朱杰 (jie zhu), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 17, 2024. On April 18, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 19, 2024, 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 (Unknown, REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 24, 2024, 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 April 25, 2024. On April 24, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On April 25, 2024, 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”).
page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 6, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 27, 2024. The Center appointed James Wang as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2024. 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 corporation headquartered in Hong Kong, China and specializes in the wholesale distribution of industrial machinery and equipment. The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the mark GREENWORKS, including but not limited to: - United States trademark registration No. 6890998, registered on November 1, 2022; and - United States trademark registration No. 6890996, registered on November 1, 2022. The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2023 and resolves to a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s GREENWORKS trademark and apparently selling the Complainant’s GREENWORKS branded products at discounted prices. 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 identical or confusingly similar to the GREENWORKS trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 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.
page 3 The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. 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). Considering the Center has already sent Chinese-English dual language case-related communications to the Parties, including communications regarding the language of the proceeding, and thereby given the Respondent an opportunity to comment on or to oppose the Complainant’s request and arguments, and considering the Respondent’s default and lack of reaction after having been given a fair chance to comment or oppose, together with the fact that the disputed domain name consists of only Latin letters instead of Chinese characters and the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is in English, the Panel finds it would not be unfair to proceed in English as requested by the Complainant. 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. 6.2 Substantive Elements According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registrant of GREENWORKS trademark registrations. 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 GREENWORKS mark is recognizable 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, “power” and “tool”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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. 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. In the present case, 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. Further, the composition of the disputed domain name is such to carry a risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant, which cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark GREENWORKS in its entirety and resolves to a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s GREENWORKS trademark and apparently selling the Complainant’s GREENWORKS branded products at discounted prices. This may mislead potential consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and making the general public believe that the services advertised on the website which the disputed domain name resolves to are authorized by the Complainant. According to the Complaint, several customers of the Complainant have raised concerns regarding the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, as the customers never received the purchased products. The Complainant therefore contends that there is a high risk that the disputed domain name is used for fraudulent activities. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, alleged impersonation) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 5 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. /James Wang/ James Wang Sole Panelist Date: June 17, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy