ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Linhope International Limited, Sirens Design Limited, Linhope International (UK) Limited, Original Beauty Technology Company Limited v. Daniela Hoover, Zhang Fei, zheng zhou, Vanina Riojas, Felix Dresn Case No. D2025-2833 1. The Parties Complainants are Linhope International Limited, Hong Kong, China (the “First Complainant”); Sirens Design Limited, United Kingdom (the “Second Complainant”); Linhope International (UK) Limited, United Kingdom (the “Third Complainant”); and Original Beauty Technology Company Limited, Hong Kong, China (the “Fourth Complainant”), (collectively referred to as “Complainants”) all represented by Bishop & Sewell LLP, United Kingdom (“UK”). Respondents are Daniela Hoover, Germany (the “First Respondent”); Zhang Fei, China (the “Second Respondent”); zheng zhou, China (the “Third Respondent”); Vanina Riojas, Spain (the “Fourth Respondent”); and Felix Dresn, France (the “Fifth Respondent”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names (the “Domain Names”) were registered by the respective Respondents, with the respective registrars on the corresponding dates of registration, as follows: Domain Name Registrar Respondent Date of registration 1API GmbH Felix Dresn, France April 24, 2023 Dominet (HK) Limited Zhang Fei, China April 24, 2023 Cosmotown, Inc. zheng zhou, China September 20, 2024 Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu Daniela Hoover, Germany June 14, 2024 Hongkong Kouming International Limited Vanina Riojas, Spain October 18, 2024 The Registrars above will collectively be referred to as the “Registrars”.
page 2 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On July 18, 21 and 31, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on July 31, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar(s), requesting Complainants to either file separate complaint(s) for the Domain Names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. Complainants filed an amended Complaint in English on August 5, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. On August 5, 2025, Complainants requested English to be the language of the proceeding. Respondents did not submit any comment on Complainants’ 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 Respondents in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 28, 2025. Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondents’ default on September 2, 2025. The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on September 9, 2025. 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 Complainants are engaged in the business of marketing and selling clothing and accessories. The First and Fourth Complainants are based in Hong Kong, China, while the Second and the Third Complainants are UK-based companies. The Third Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Complainant. Complainants in this administrative proceeding are related as follows: The First Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks for the HOUSE OF CB worldwide, including: - UK registered trademark number UK00003068906 for the HOUSE OF CB series of trademarks, (which include HOUSE OF CB, houseofcb and house of cb), registered on January 2, 2015; - Chinese registered trademark numbers 14802543 and 35653958 for the HOUSE OF CB word and design marks, registered on January 14, 2018 and August 21, 2019, respectively; - Australian registered trademark number 2135860 for the HOUSE OF CB design and word marks registered on November 13, 2020; and - United States of America (“United States”) registered trademark number 7464778 for the HOUSE OF CB LONDON word and design mark, registered on August 6, 2024. The First Complainant licensed the Fourth Complainant the trademark rights of UK registered trademark number UK00003068906 for the HOUSE OF CB series of trademarks and the Fourth Complainant was recorded in the UK trademark register as the exclusive licensee of this trademark series.
page 3 The Third Complainant owns and operates several registered trademarks for the HOUSE OF CB, including: - European registered trade mark No. 018232169 for the HOUSE OF CB word mark, registered on August 25, 2020; - UK registered trade mark No. UK00003477882, for the “HOUSEOFCBLONDON” series of trademarks, which includes (HOUSEOFCBLONDON, houseofcblondon and HouseofCBLondon and House of CB London) marks, registered on October 23, 2020; and - UK registered trade mark No. UK00004095954 for the HOUSE OF CB LONDON design mark, registered on December 20, 2024. The marks noted above will be collectively referred to as the “HOUSE OF CB trademarks”. The Third Complainant granted an exclusive license of its UK registered trade mark number UK00003477882, for the “HOUSEOFCBLONDON” series of trademarks to the Fourth Complainant. From 2014 to April 3, 2022, the Fourth Complainant traded as “HOUSE OF CB” and “HOUSE OF CB LONDON” worldwide through the website and branded stores and concessions within stores in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. The Fourth Complainant transferred its business assets to the Second Complainant in 2022 and it also assigned all its intellectual property rights to the Second Complainant, including in its images, garment designs and website design. The Second Complainant now trades as HOUSE OF CB, HOUSE OF CB LONDON and HOUSE OF CB LONDON worldwide through the website and branded stores and concessions within stores in the UK, United States, and Australia. The Second Complainant now operates the Instagram account “@houseofcb”, and the Twitter account “@HouseOfCB”. The Second Complainant continues to sell garments and accessories associated with the HOUSE OF CB marks. The respective Respondents registered the corresponding Domain Names noted above in Section 2 on the respective registration dates. In particular, the Domain Names and were both registered on April 24, 2023. The Domain Names , , and each resolve to websites that display numerous copies of images allegedly copied from the Second Complainant and are advertising for sale identical copies of the goods offered for sale by the Second Complainant. The record shows that based on a Google search for , the related website the Domain Name reverted to appeared to offer HOUSE OF CB dresses and corsets. In addition, Complainant indicates that both and display identical Privacy Notices and Return Policies, and display the HOUSE OF CB trademarks. The Domain Name resolves to an error page. Complainants noted that they have tried calling the telephone numbers provided for Respondents but none of them were active telephone numbers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names.
page 4 Notably, Complainants contend that (i) the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks; (ii) Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names; and (iii) Respondents registered and are using the Domain Names in bad faith. In particular, Complainants contend that they have trademark registrations for HOUSE OF CB, and that Respondents registered and are using the Domain Names with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known HOUSE OF CB products and services. Further, Complainants contend that Respondents have acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Names, when Respondents clearly knew of Complainants’ rights. The Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondents Respondents did not reply to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Consolidation Complainants request consolidation of the nominally different Domain Name registrants into a single proceeding for the following reasons: Complainants contend that Domain Names are under common ownership and/or control because: three of the Domain Names resolve to largely similar websites, each of which holds itself out as a genuine website of Complainants’, that offers Complainants’ products, the websites are intended to create the impression of being actual websites of Complainants’, purporting to offer Complainants’ branded goods, using images of Complainants’ products and trademarks, all without authorization from Complainants. In particular, each of the Domain Names , and resolve to websites that display images copied from the Second Complainant’s website and are offering for sale, identical copies of goods offered for sale by the Second Complainant. Both the Domain Names and display identical Privacy Notices and Return Policies, both displaying HOUSE OF CB trademarks. The Domain Names and were both registered on April 24, 2023. Complainants also contend that Respondents’ use of false contact information is also demonstrated in the registration details, citing, for example, that the street address, city, state, post code, and telephone numbers provided by the registrants are false. Complainants indicated that they have tried calling the telephone numbers provided for Respondents, but none of them were active telephone numbers. The Complainants contend that such practice reinforces the apparent use of false contact information and aliases by all disclosed registrants, likely in an attempt to frustrate consolidated proceedings such as this. The Respondents did not comment on Complainants’ request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.
page 5 In addressing Complainants’ request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the Domain Names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin Panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., or ), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s). As regards the common control, the Panel notes that the similar composition of the Domain Names, the similarities in the websites at three of the Domain Names, the use of the similar website content based on copied images from Complainants’ websites in the three Domain Names , , and to purport to sell Complainants’ products, the same registration date of the two Domain Names and , the use of identical privacy notices for the websites of Domain Names and which also display the HOUSEOFCB trademarks, and the false contact details provided by Respondents. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different Domain Name registrants (referred to hereinafter as “Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain name, the language of the proceedings 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 proceedings. Complainants submitted its original Complaint in English. In its amended Complaint dated August 5, 2025, Complainants confirmed their request that the language of the proceedings should be English. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainants’ submission. Complainants submit that the Fourth Respondent, which Complainants contend is the ultimate owner, and also the owner of the Domain Name has what appears to be a Spanish name and not a Chinese name; that his contact details are a partial address in Spain, that his email address […]@163.com indicates a name of a third party, which is neither a Chinese nor a Spanish name and the details have not been provided in Chinese script. Thus, Complainants content that the owner of the Fourth Domain Name, is familiar with the English language.
page 6 Complainants submit that it would be costly and time consuming to have the Complaint and annexes translated into another language, particularly because the owner/operator of the Domain Name , which appears to be the ultimate owner of all the Domain Names, appear to be familiar with English. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name, 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. The Panel accepts Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceedings. The Panel also notes that the Domain Names contain Complainants’ HOUSEOFCB trademark in its entirety, in three of the Domain Names as noted above, Respondent is using the Domain Names to host websites that display numerous copies of images allegedly copied from the Second Complainant and are advertising for sale, identical copies of goods offered for sale by the Second Complainant. The Panel further notes that the Center notified the Parties in Chinese and English of the language of the proceedings as well as notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and it would be cumbersome, costly, and result in delay, if Complainants are required to translate the Complaint and annexes into Chinese. Respondent chose not to comment on the language of the proceedings, nor did Respondent choose to file a Response in Chinese or English. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceedings. 6.3. Substantive Issues Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case, Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainants to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainants have provided evidence of their rights in the HOUSE OF CB trademarks, as noted above under Section 4. Complainants have therefore proven that they have the requisite rights in the HOUSE OF CB trademarks. With Complainants’ rights in the HOUSE OF CB trademarks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Names, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’
page 7 trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOUSE OF CB trademarks. The HOUSE OF CB trademark is reproduced and recognizable in the Domain Names. In particular, the Domain Names’ inclusion of Complainants’ HOUSE OF CB trademark in its entirety, with the absence of spaces between “HOUSE”, “OF” and “CB” and the addition of a dash “-”, followed by a country name, following the HOUSE OF CB mark, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the HOUSE OF CB trademarks. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainants have satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes out such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainants and their HOUSE OF CB trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In addition, Complainants assert that Respondent is not authorized to promote Complainants’ goods or services and is not related to Complainants. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the HOUSE OF CB trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Names. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the three of the Domain Names resolved to websites that duplicates images of products offered by Second Complainant and offer the products for sale. Such use featuring the HOUSE OF CB trademarks, content owned by the Second Complainant and sale of the purported Complainants’ products, potentially mislead Internet users into thinking that the associated website has been authorized or operated by or affiliated with Complainants. Thus, such use by Respondent does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Moreover, the nature of the Domain Names, which includes Complainants’ trademarks HOUSE OF CB in its entirety, with the absence of spaces between “HOUSE”, “OF” and “CB” and the addition of a dash “-“, followed by a country name, is inherently misleading and carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Accordingly, Complainants have provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and Complainants have met their burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
page 8 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that Complainants have provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the HOUSE OF CB trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Names. Complainants are also well known and established. Indeed, the record shows that Complainants’ HOUSE OF CB trademarks and related products and services are widely known and recognized. In addition, the Fifth Respondent, Felix Dresn, was subject to another UDRP proceeding with the Complainant (see Linhope International Limited, Sirens Design Limited, Linhope International (UK) Limited, Original Beauty Technology Company Limited v. Felix Dresn, WIPO Case No. D2025-0969), in which the panel decided for the transfer of the domain name . Therefore, the Panel is of the view of that Respondent was aware of the HOUSE OF CB trademarks when they registered the Domain Names. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainants’ trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. Further, the registration of the Domain Names, each of which includes Complainants’ HOUSE OF CB trademarks suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in the HOUSE OF CB trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Names and their effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the Domain Names. Moreover, Respondent registered and is using Domain Names to confuse and mislead consumers looking for bona fide and well-known HOUSE OF CB products and services of Complainants. In particular, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Names , , and resolved to a website featuring Complainant’s HOUSE OF CB marks, as well as products in Complainant’s field of business and industry, to promote Respondent’s activities as noted above.
page 9 The use of the HOUSE OF CB marks in the Domain Names is intended to capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for Complainants’ products and services. The record shows that based on a Google search for , the related website the Domain Name reverted to appeared to offer HOUSE OF CB dresses and corsets. Therefore, by using the Domain Names featuring Complainants’ trademarks, and then further to promote the purported Complainants’ products using images copied from the Second Complainant’s website to induce members of the public to pay for such products of the Second Complainant, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ HOUSE OF CB marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. All these actions may result in tarnishing Complainants’ reputation and goodwill in the industry. The Domain Name resolves to an error page. The Panel finds that the non-use of the Domain Name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the circumstances of this case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and are using the Domain Names in bad faith and Complainants succeed under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Names: , , , and be transferred to the Second Complainant, Sirens Design Limited, as requested in the Complaint. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: September 19, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy