The Complainant is Moog Inc. of East Aurora, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Huang Xichun of Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 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 October 9, 2018. On October 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 10, 2018, 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 October 15, 2018, 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 on the same day. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
The Center verified that the 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 October 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2018.
The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on November 15, 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 designer, manufacturer, and integrator of precision control components and systems. Its high-performance systems control military and commercial aircraft, satellites and space vehicles, launch vehicles, missiles, automated industrial machinery, wind turbines, and marine and medical equipment. The Complainant was founded in 1951 when William (Bill) C. Moog developed the electro-hydraulic servovalve, a device that translates tiny, electrical impulses into precise and powerful movement. In July of that year, Bill, along with his brother and another associate, formed the Moog Valve Company, the Complainant’s predecessor in title. The Complainant has grown to become one of the global leaders in control solutions operating in four major segments: aircraft controls, space and defence controls, industrial controls and components providing custom tailored solutions to both military and civilian customers. The Complainant is present in 27 countries worldwide and employs nearly 11,000 people. Publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: MOG), the Complainant reported sales of USD 2.50 billion in 2017.
The Complainant’s products and services are provided under the MOOG trade mark. The MOOG trade mark is registered in many jurisdictions world wide including China. The earliest trade mark submitted in evidence, MOOG under International Trade Mark Registration No. 402981 dates back to November 20, 1973 (the “Trade Mark”).
The Complainant spends a significant amount of time and resources to protect their trade mark presence specifically in China.
The Complainant has a strong Internet presence through its website located at “”. According to S, the Complainant’s website saw 170,000 visits in March 2018 alone. A ranks “” the 58,510th most popular website in the United States with a global rank of 129,616.
The Respondent who is based in China registered the Domain Name on September 3, 2015. The Domain Name is connected to a blank page with no content. The Complainant’s representatives sent a cease‑and‑desist letter to the Respondent on May 11, 2018. This was followed by chasers in May 18, 2018 and May 25, 2018. The Respondent failed to respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and is being 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 Language of 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 in English for the following reasons:
1. The Complainant is unable to communicate in Chinese and translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay the proceedings and adjudication of this matter;
2. The Domain Name is comprised of Latin characters;
3. The term “moog”, which is the dominant portion of the Domain Name, does not carry any specific meaning in the Chinese language;
4. the Complainant previously sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent and the Respondent had ample time and opportunity to respond to such letter and request that communications continue in Chinese. The Respondent neither issued such a request nor responded to the Complainant in any matter whatsoever. To allow the Respondent to dictate the course of this matter and further burden the Complainant at this juncture would contravene the spirit of the UDRP and disadvantage the Complainant.
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 regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s request and in fact has failed to file a response. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner. In this case, the Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in Chinese. 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. 6.2 Substantive Issues
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 being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the Trade Mark. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trade mark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.
In this case the Domain Name contains the Complainant’s 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 country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) which in this case is “.cc”. It is viewed as a standard registration requirement (section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical 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 or legitimate interests in a 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.
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 the WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. 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 fails to come forward with such relevant evidence the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Trade Mark or the Domain Name. The Complainant has not licensed, authorized or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trade Mark or apply for any domain name that incorporates the Trade Mark. There is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use under the Policy.
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 provided any reasons why it chose to register the Domain Name comprising a trade mark with which it has no connection. 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 it registered the Domain Name. It is implausible that it was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name especially since the Trade Mark has no other dictionary significance and is also very well known.
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 Panel notes that the Chinese Trademark Review and Adjudication Board “TRAB” has in a judgment in favour of the Complainant has recognised that the Trade Mark has acquired a high reputation in the design, manufacture and assembly of machinery control components, parts and systems.
The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the Domain Name is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). In light of the above, the Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.
The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. This does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the “passive holding” principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. In this case the totality of the circumstances to be considered include the fame of the Complainant’s trade mark, the failure of the Respondent to file a response to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter or to submit a Response in this proceeding and the implausibility of any good faith use for which the Domain Name can be put to.
From the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and the Complainant has succeeded in proving the third element. 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: November 23, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy