The Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”) represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is songguangxiu of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 22net, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 16, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 17, 2017, 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 November 21, 2017, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding and provided an amended Complaint on November 23, 2017. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 4, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 26, 2017.
The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2018. 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 professional services and investment management firm specializing in real estate. Headquartered in the United States, the Complainant was formed by the merger of Jones Lang Wootton and LaSalle Partners in 1999. The Complainant is an industry leader in property and corporate facility management services, with a portfolio of 4.4 billion square feet worldwide. With a workforce of 77,000 employees, the Complainant serves clients in over 80 countries from more than 280 corporate office locations worldwide. The Complainant is a publically traded company and, in 2016, reported an annual fee revenue of USD 5.8 billion. It is the winner of numerous awards and accolades. In 2015 and 2016, the Complainant achieved Fortune 500 status while being recognized by Fortune Magazine as one of the “World’s Most Admired Companies.” The Complainant was also included in Forbes’ list of “America’s Best Employers 2016”.
Since 2014 the Complainant has officially marketed itself under the name “JLL”. The Complainant owns trade marks in multiple jurisdictions including the United States and China for the marks JONES LANG LASALLE, JONES LANG LASALLE (JLL) and JONES LANG LASALLE & Device in a number of classes. The earliest trade mark registration submitted in evidence was registered in 2000 (European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 001126291, registered on June 13, 2000). The trade mark registrations will be collectively referred to as the “Trade Mark”.
The Complainant owns numerous domain names which incorporate the Trade Mark. The Complainant maintains 100 websites globally and in 2015, the Complainant established its own generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) comprising the it’s trade marks – “.jll” and “.lasalle”. The Complainant’s official websites found at “” and “” received 574.45K and 84.42K total visits for the 6-month periods of April, 2017 until September, 2017, respectively. The Complainant also has a strong social media presence through the use of its Facebook, Twitter and Google+ pages. Its Twitter page has over 68,000 followers while its Facebook page has over 100,000 “likes”.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 22, 2017. The Domain Name is connected to a pay-per-click parking page (the “Website”) which has hyperlinks to third party websites including those of the Complainant’s competitors. The Complainant’s representatives sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on October 4, 2017 who responded and offered to sell the Domain Name for USD 3,500. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The 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. 6.2. Language of the Proceeding
The Rules, paragraph 11, 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 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. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese.
The Complainant submits that the language of the proceeding should be English. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is in Latin characters and the Trade Mark which comprises the Domain Name does not carry any meaning in the Chinese language. Further, the response to the Complainant’s representatives’ letter by the Respondent was in English thus showing the ability to comprehend and communicate in the English language. The Complainant and its representatives do not understand Chinese. If it has to conduct the proceeding in the Chinese language, it will be subject to disproportionate expense and undue delay caused by the cost of translation services and the inconvenience of having to conduct the proceeding in Chinese.
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.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions. The Respondent has chosen not to respond. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner. The Panel notes that all of the communications from the Center to the Parties were transmitted in both Chinese and English. In all the circumstances, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. 6.3. Substantive Analysis A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark.
The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself to establish if the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trade mark. The trade mark would generally have to be recognizable within the domain name. In this case the Domain Name integrates the Trade Mark in its entirety. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the gTLD. It is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant right or legitimate interest, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or the Trade Mark. The Complainant has no commercial link with the Respondent. It has not granted the Respondent any authorization, licence or any right whatsoever to use the Trade Mark or any mark similar to the Trade Mark as part of the Domain Name. Nor is the Respondent an authorized dealer, licensee or distributor of the Complainant. The Website does not show there to be a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Name has been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when he registered the Domain Name. It is implausible that he was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name given the reputation of the Complainant.
In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:
“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark.”
The term “joneslanglasalle” does not have any dictionary significance other than as the name of the Complainant. It is clearly inconceivable that the Domain Name was selected by the Respondent without the Complainant in mind. Further, as outlined under the second element above, the clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the Domain Name is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in section 3.1.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Domain Name falls into the category stated above and the Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.
The Panel also concludes that the actual use of the Domain Name is in bad faith. The use of the Domain Name is intended to capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for the Complainant’s products and services. Once on the Website, a pay‑per‑click parking page, any clicks will no doubt profit the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent’s providing the Complainant with the choice to pay him USD 3,500 to transfer the Domain Name is a clear demonstration that the Domain Name has been used in bad faith. The offer to transfer the Domain Name for sums exceeding the reasonable cost of registration and maintenance falls squarely within the circumstances in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy which is evidence of bad faith. The Panel also notes that the address of the Respondent is clearly false as it contains a Los Angeles, California address mixed with a postcode in the city of Qita in China. The Respondent has not raised any substantive points to challenge these allegations. Considering the circumstances, the Panel considers that this Domain Name was also used in bad faith.
The above is clearly bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is in bad faith. 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 Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Karen Fong
Sole Panelist
Date: January 17, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy