The Complainant is Eurazeo, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondent is 程飞 (Cheng Fei), China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 23, 2021. On August 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 24, 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 September 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, Article 17 and 49, the due date for Response was September 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 21, 2021.
The Center appointed Peter J. Dernbach as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a global investment group formed in April 2001 by merger of Azeo and Eurafrance.
The Complainant is the owner of EURAZEO trademarks including the International trademark EURAZEO, registration number 759748, registered since April 25, 2001, which designates China.
The Complainant is the owner of
The Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant’s submissions may be summarized as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name or mark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests.
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark. The Disputed Domain Name includes the EURAZEO trademark without the addition of any other word or letter. The use of lower-case letter format and the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com.cn” are not significant in determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name or major part of 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 found no EURAZEO trademark owned by the Respondent. Also, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark in any manner, including the use in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is used in connection with an active website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale, and it requires more than USD 450, which far exceeds the cost to register a “.com.cn” domain name, to purchase the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Respondent is attempting to obtain financial gains from the sale of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant concludes that the Respondent’s activities do not correspond to any of the circumstances set forth in Article 10 of the Policy.
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant argues that the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark, which is a made-up word arising from the merger of Azeo and Eurafrance. The Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark is not a common word. The Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale. Such offer shows that the Respondent is attempting to make undue commercial profit from the Disputed Domain Name and may not be considered good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name.
In addition, according to ViewDNS, the Respondent’s email address is associated with more than 300 domain names, including those that consist of well-known trademarks. The Respondent has also been involved in other cases where the panels ordered that the Respondent transfer the disputed domain names to respective complainants. This shows that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of behavior with the attempt of preventing trademark owners from registering domain names corresponding to their trademarks.
The Complainant then concludes that the combination of the above evidence shows that the Respondent has acted in bad faith when registering and using the Disputed Domain Name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Language of the ProceedingArticle 6 of the Policy provides that “[t]he language of the domain name dispute resolution proceedings shall be Chinese, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the Panel.” Article 8 of the Rules provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties or determined in exceptional cases by the Panel, the language of the domain name dispute resolution proceedings shall be Chinese.”
Article 31 of the Rules provides that “[i]n all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the parties are treated with equality and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, give out its reasons and provide the evidence” and that “[t]he Panel shall ensure that the proceedings take place with due expedition.”
According to Article 6 of the Policy and Article 8 of the Rules, the language of the proceeding shall be Chinese. However, the Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website on which all the content is in English, showing that the Respondent has the ability to present his case in English. Also, the panel in T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. 程飞(Chengfei),WIPO Case No. DCN2021-0008, which involves the same Respondent as the present case, found that the Respondent is able to understand and use English. Further, the Center has communicated with the Respondent in both Chinese and English, and the Respondent was given an opportunity to comment on the language of the proceeding and failed to do so. In order to proceed in Chinese, the Complainant would have to retain specialized translation services which would add unnecessary time and expense to the proceeding.
Given the above considerations, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding be English. The Panel believes that such decision is fair to both Parties while ensuring the proceeding takes place with due expedition.
7. Discussion and FindingsIn accordance with Article 8 of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding and obtain the requested remedy (in this case, transfer of the Disputed Domain Name), the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are present:
(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; and
(b) the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name or major part of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(c) the Respondent has registered or has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or InterestsThe Complainant has established that it owns rights in the EURAZEO trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is a combination of the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark and the TLD “.com.cn”. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the EURAZEO trademark in its entirety without the addition of any other term. Also, the addition of TLD “.com.cn” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark.
For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark, and the condition of Article 8(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsArticle 10 of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, the Disputed Domain Name, for the purposes of Article 8(b) 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; or
(b) the Respondent has been commonly known by the [Disputed Domain Name], even if he has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(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.
The Complainant states that it has neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent’s name, “程飞 (Cheng Fei)”, does not appear to be related to the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name connects to a PPC website with a banner on top offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale and the amount to purchase the Disputed Domain Name is higher than USD 450. Such use of the Disputed Domain Name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Complainant therefore has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent has not submitted any argument or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
Based on the above, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the condition of Article 8(b) of the Policy.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithArticle 8(c) of the Policy provides that “[s]upport of a Complaint against a registered domain name is subject to the following conditions: […] (c) [t]he disputed domain name holder has registered or has been using the domain name in bad faith.”
Article 9 of the Policy explicitly states, in relevant parts, that “[a]ny of the following circumstances may be the evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(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;
(b) the disputed domain name holder registers domain names in order to prevent owners of the names or marks from reflecting the names or the marks in corresponding domain names;
(c) The disputed domain name holder has registered or acquired the [Disputed Domain Name] for the purpose of damaging the Complainant’s reputation, disrupting the Complainant’s normal business or creating confusion with the Complainant’s name or mark so as to mislead the public;
[…]”
The Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark is an invented word arising from the merger of Azeo and Eurafrance and is not a common word in any language. Given the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark and its prior registration, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant’s EURAZEO trademark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a PPC website with a banner on top offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale and the amount to purchase the Disputed Domain Name is higher than USD 450. This demonstrates that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling and obtaining unjustified benefits. Such use of the Disputed Domain Name also disrupts the Complainant’s normal business. Further, according to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent’s email address is associated with many domain names that consist of well-known trademarks. Panels in other cases filed under the Policy against the same Respondent have ordered that the disputed domain names be transferred to the respective complainants. This further demonstrates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of behavior to prevent the owners of trademarks from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names.
Having considered the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith, and the Complainant has fulfilled the condition of Article 8(c) of the Policy.
8. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Articles 14 of the Policy and 40 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name
Peter J. Dernbach
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2021