The Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper LLP (US), United States.
The Respondent is 程飞 (Chengfei), China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 7, 2021. On April 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 12, 2021, 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 in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, Articles 17 and 49, the due date for Response was May 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 26, 2021. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2021. 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 is an asset management firm founded in 1937 by Thomas Rowe Price, Jr. Its services include mutual funds, sub-advisory services, and separate account management for individual and institutional investors, retirement plans, and financial intermediaries. It has offices and affiliates in the United States, Europe and Asia/Pacific, including one in Shanghai, China. It owns trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including the following Chinese trademark registrations for T. ROWE PRICE: Number Registration date Class 1785790 June 14, 2002 16 1948906 October 28, 2002 36 16348982 April 7, 2016 41 16348983 April 7, 2016 9 41476590 June 28, 2020 36 The above trademark registrations remain in effect. The Complainant has also registered the domain name The Respondent is an individual resident in China. According to the public WhoIs, the disputed domain names The disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks for T. ROWE PRICE. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has no business relationship whatsoever with the Respondent. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the T. ROWE PRICE marks or to apply for any domain name incorporating the T. ROWE PRICE marks. The Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain names other than to passively hold them while offering them for sale. The Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names to sell or otherwise transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainant who is the owner of the mark or to a competitor of the Complainant. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the Complainant, as owner of the T. ROWE PRICE marks, from registering them. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding According to Article 6 of the Policy and Article 8 of the Rules, the language of the proceeding shall be Chinese, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or determined by the Panel in exceptional circumstances. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English. It argues that the Respondent is able to understand English, as evidenced by the fact that the website to which the disputed domain names resolve is in that language. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. In accordance with Article 31 of the Rules, the Panel shall ensure that each Party is treated with equality and given a fair opportunity to present its case. The Panel shall also ensure that the proceedings take place with due expedition. Therefore, when considering the Complainant’s request, 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 the Complaint into Chinese. See Laure de Sagazan v. 刘岩,WIPO Case No. DCN2019-0010; and Forest Tosara Limited v. 王晓文 (Wang Xiao Wen),WIPO Case No. DCN2019-0008. The Panel observes that the Complaint was filed in English. The landing pages to which the disputed domain names resolve invite offers in English, from which it may be inferred that the Respondent is able to understand and use that language. Despite having received the Notification of the Complaint (including information on the language of the proceeding) and the Written Notice in both Chinese and English, the Respondent has not expressed any interest in participating in this proceeding nor has the Respondent commented on the language of the proceeding. In these circumstances, the Panel considers that translation of the Complaint into Chinese would create an undue delay, whereas accepting the Complaint in its original language will not cause unfairness to either Party. Having considered all the circumstances, this Panel determines under Article 6 of the Policy and Article 8 of the Rules that the language of the proceeding is English. The Panel would have accepted a Response in Chinese, but none was filed. 6.2 Substantive Issues Article 8 of the Policy provides that a complaint against a registered domain name shall be supported if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name or mark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests; (b) the disputed domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name or major part of the disputed domain name; (c) the disputed domain name holder has registered or has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Article 7 of the Policy states that the Complainant and the Respondent shall bear the burden of proof for their own claims. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or Interests Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has civil rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark. The disputed domain names both incorporate the Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark as their respective operational element, omitting only the dot and the spaces between each component for technical reasons. One disputed domain name includes a country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) extension (“.cn”). This element is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark. See VIOOH Limited / JCDecaux SA v. 郑碧莲 (Zheng Bi Lian),WIPO Case No. DCN2019-0007. The other disputed domain name includes a Second-Level Domain (“SLD”) extension (“.com.cn”). This element is also generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark. See Facebook Technologies, LLC v.曹丛刚 (Cao Cong Gang),WIPO Case No. DCN2019-0015. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has civil rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in Article 8 of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Article 10 of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, may be evidence of the respondent’s rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of Article 8 of the Policy: (a) the Respondent uses of the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (b) the Respondent has been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if he has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; (c) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent of or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. In the present case, the Complainant submits that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its marks or to apply for any domain name incorporating its marks. The Respondent uses the disputed domain names – which are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark – in connection with landing pages that merely offer them for sale. The Panel does not consider that the Respondent is making a use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of Article 10(a) of the Policy. Nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the terms of Article10(c) of the Policy. The Respondent’s name is listed in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as “程飞” (Chengfei), not the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names within the terms of Article 10(b) of the Policy. In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because he did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in Article 8 of the Policy. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Article 9 of the Policy provides that certain circumstances may be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith. The first of these is as follows: (a) The purpose for registering or acquiring the [disputed] domain name is to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the [disputed] domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the name or mark or to a competitor of that complainant, and to obtain unjustified benefits; The disputed domain names were registered in 2020, years after the Complainant obtained its T. ROWE PRICE trademark registrations. The disputed domain names incorporate the T. ROWE PRICE mark as their respective operational elements. The combination of these three components (an initial and two names) is not a dictionary word or a phrase; rather, it is the name of the Complainant’s founder. The Panel considers it implausible that the Respondent registered those same components in that same sequence in the disputed domain names by coincidence. Rather, it indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s mark in bad faith when he registered the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are used in connection with landing pages that merely offer them for sale. Each landing page invites Internet users to “make an offer” for the corresponding disputed domain name and advises that “Your offer must be higher than $500”. Given the value of the minimum amount, it is very likely calculated to obtain a commercial benefit for the Respondent with respect to each disputed domain name. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name registrations to the Complainant who is the owner of the T. ROWE PRICE mark, or to a competitor of the Complainant, and to obtain unjustified benefits, within the meaning of Article 9(a) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in Article 8 of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Articles 14 of the Policy and 40 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy