ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Groupe IDEC, IDEC v. 刘建福 (Jia Liu) Case No. D2025-2953 1. The Parties Complainants are Groupe IDEC, France, and IDEC, France, represented by Niddam-Drouas Avocats, France. Respondent is 刘建福 (Jia Liu), 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 July 24, 2025. On July 24, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2025, 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 Complainant on the same day, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on July 28, 2025. On July 25, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On July 28, 2025, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on 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 Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 24, 2025. The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 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 A. Complainant Complainant are Groupe IDEC and its subsidiary IDEC, companies incorporated in France and active in the real estate sector. Groupe IDEC is a major market player with more than 20 specialized subsidiaries, employing over 600 staff members worldwide and generating an annual turnover of approximately EUR 450–500 million (Annex 1.3 to the Complaint). The group operates internationally across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Complainant is the owner of numerous IDEC trademarks worldwide, including the French trademark registration for IDEC GROUPE, registered on October 29, 2019 (registration number: 4594808); the European Union trademark registration for IDEC, registered on January 25, 2016 (registration number: 014653505) (Annex 5.5 to the Complaint). Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name , registered since November 30, 2006 (Annex 5.4 to the Complaint). B. Respondent Respondent is 刘建福 (Jia Liu), China. The disputed domain name was registered on June 3, 2025. According to the Complaint and relevant evidence provided by Complainant, the disputed domain name redirected to a GoDaddy webpage where it was offered for sale at a price of USD 3,000 (Annex 6 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to 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. From the evidence presented on the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English. Complainant filed initially its Complaint and amended Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following reasons: (a) English is the most widely spoken international language and is likely to be understood by all parties involved; (b) The use of the generic Top-Level Domain (”gTLD”) “.group,” together with the content of the website accessible through the disputed domain name (offering the disputed domain name for sale), demonstrates Respondent’s ability to understand and communicate with potential customers in English (Annex 6 to the Complaint); (c) Complainant has no knowledge of the Chinese language. 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). On the record, Respondent appears to be located in China and thus presumably not a native English speaker, but considering the following aspects, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be English: (a) the disputed domain name is registered in Latin characters (i.e., Latin characters “idec” and English word “group”), rather than Chinese script; (b) the gTLD of the disputed domain name is “.group”, so the disputed domain name seems to be prepared for users worldwide, particularly English speaking countries; (c) the webpages which the disputed domain name redirected to are in the English language; (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the language of the proceeding in both Chinese and English; and (e) the Center also notified Respondent in both Chinese and English of the Complaint, and informed Respondent that it would accept a response in either English or Chinese, but Respondent chose not to file any response. 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.
page 4 6.2 Substantive Issues: Three Elements 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 IDEC mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. More specifically, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognised that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. 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 record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. More specifically, (i) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of reasons to justify the choice of the terms “idec”, which, as combined, is Complainant’s IDEC trademark that enjoys long-standing prior use, in the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the IDEC mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the IDEC marks; (ii) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s IDEC marks; and (iii) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent was making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Notably, the disputed domain name redirected to a webpage where the disputed domain name was offered for sale. In the circumstances, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to redirect users to an aftermarket website where it is offered for sale would not support a claim to
page 5 rights or legitimate interests. 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 this case, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s IDEC trademark, which has been internationally registered since 2016. Given the timing and Complainant’s reputation, it is not conceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration in 2025. More likely than not, the Respondent’s selection of the gTLD “.group” was intended to create confusion with the Complainant’s IDEC GROUPE trademark and domain name. Based on the information provided in the Complaint, following the registration, Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale at USD 3,000 (Annex 6 to the Complaint). Thus, the Panel concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration likely in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. Such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Complainant. /Yijun Tian/ Yijun Tian Sole Panelist Date: September 18, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy