The Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is 孙洪洲, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 2, 2020, 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. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (the “WIPO Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, Articles 5 and 6, and Articles 14 to 16, and the WIPO Supplemental Rules, Paragraph 4(d), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in both English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on January 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, Article 17 and 49, the due date for Response was February 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 4, 2020. The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 2020. 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, Article 29. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, a Swedish company founded in 1901, is one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen, cleaning products and floor care products. The Complainant owns the registrations for the mark AEG in many jurisdictions, including the International trademark registrations, No. 837539A and No. 822564, acquired on June 22, 2004 and October 29, 2003 respectively. According to the Registrar’s verification response, the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceeding According to Article 8 of the Rules, the language of proceeding shall be Chinese, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or decided by the Panel in exceptional cases. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English and presented the reasons. The Respondent did not make any submissions in relation to the language of the proceeding even though the Center’s communications to this effect (as was the Notification of Complaint) were both in English and in Chinese. In accordance with Article 31 of the Rules, the Panel shall ensure that each Party be treated with equality and given a fair opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the Panel should take into account whether the Respondent is able to understand the language of the Complaint and whether the Complainant would be disadvantaged by having to translate all the submissions into Chinese, when assessing the Complainant’s request for changing the language of the proceeding. Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Respondent has sufficient capacity to understand and use English because the Respondent displays the contents solely in English on the website established at the disputed domain name as well as in the domain name character string. On the other hand, the Complainant has submitted the Complaint and evidence materials in English and would bear considerable costs to translate all the submissions into Chinese and take part in the proceeding in Chinese. The Panel further notes that the Respondent did not submit a reply. Having considered all the circumstances, this Panel determines under Article 8 of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s name or mark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests Pursuant to the Policy, Article 8(a), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name or mark in which the complainant enjoys civil rights or interests. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its civil right or interest in the relevant name or mark and the similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s name or mark. The Panel notes that the Complainant acquired the international trademark registrations for AEG through international trademark registrations, i.e. No. 837539A on June 22, 2004 and No. 822564 on October 29, 2003, and China is one of the designated countries. Therefore, before the registration of the disputed domain name on August 25, 2019, the Complainant has acquired the trademark registrations for AEG in China through the International Trademark Registration system and enjoyed the trademark right under the Chinese law. The disputed domain name is Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Article 10 of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can be taken to demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in Article 10 of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference. Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name The Complainant proves that the Respondent’s website established at the disputed domain name, “www.aeg-powertools.com.cn”, is solely used to publicly offer to sell this domain name. On the website, the Respondent states that “aeg-powertools.com.cn is a transferrable Brand Assets”, “the benefit you will get from this premium domain name”, “[t]he value of the domain name will gradually rise”, and “the sooner purchasing the more wise”. Given that the Respondent has never established any “Brand” since the registration of the disputed domain name, the so-called “Brand Assets” promoted by the Respondent obviously refer to the reputation of the Complainant’s mark of AEG, which is the only distinctive part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s statements made on the website of the disputed domain name actually disclose that the Respondent has been intentionally taken advantage of the brand value of the Complainant’s AEG mark by registering and offering to sell the disputed domain name to the public. Since registering the disputed domain name The Panel therefore finds it adequate to conclude that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with the Article 14 of the Policy and 40 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: February 21, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy