The Complainants are OLT, France and Olympia Le-Tan IP S.à r.l., Luxembourg, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondent is 张垒 (zhang lei), 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 November 4, 2021. On November 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 5, 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 November 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, Articles 17 and 49, the due date for Response was December 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 22, 2021.
The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 2022. 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 Complainants OLT and Olympia Le-Tan IP S.à r.l. are both part of the same group of companies, and will be hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Complainant”.
Founded in 2009, the Complainant produces and commercializes artisanal book covers and accessories. The Complainant claims to enjoy a strong reputation, inter alia through its strong social media presence and intensive marketing efforts, including cooperation projects with social media influencers, particularly in China.
The Complainant owns a trademark portfolio protecting the mark OLYMPIA LE-TAN, including, amongst others, the following trademark registrations, International trademark registration number 1309950A for the OLYMPIA LE-TAN word mark, registered on January 22, 2016; and International trademark registration number 1298932 for the OLT OLYMPIA LE-TAN device, registered on January 22, 2016, designating, inter alia, China. The Complainant also provides evidence that it owns an official domain name incorporating the OLYMPIA LE-TAN mark, namely
The disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2020, and is not linked to an active website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark for OLYMPIA LE-TAN, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant claims that its trademarks are distinctive and well known, and submits company and marketing information regarding its business operations. The Complainant particularly claims that there are no justifications for the use of its trademark in the disputed domain name and contends that the Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name, which only resolves to an error page. The Complainant claims that this does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant claims that given its marketing activities, including in China, notably through cooperation with famous Chinese social media influencers, and given the distinctiveness and fame of its OLYMPIA LE-TAN trademark, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Complainant also contends that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith cybersquatting.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the ProceedingPursuant to Article 6 of the Policy, Article 8 of the Rules and Paragraph 18 of the WIPO Supplemental Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or determined by the Panel under exceptional circumstances, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be Chinese.
The Complainant filed its Complaint in English, including a request that the language of the proceeding be English. On November 25, 2021, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint and of the commencement of the proceeding, including that the Complaint was filed in English. The Center also notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of its right to file a Response in either Chinese or English, and comment on the language of the proceeding in its Response. Nevertheless, the Respondent did not submit any response or comment in this administrative proceeding.
The present Panel, which is familiar with both English and Chinese, has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English, the lack of comment on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response on the merits from the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent was duly invited to respond in either Chinese or English); the fact that the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark OLYMPIA LE-TAN except for the hyphen; the evidence produced by the Complainant which proves that the Respondent has registered a large number of domain names including terms in English; and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted delays and additional costs for the Complainant. In view of these exceptional circumstances, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request, and decides that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be English.
6.2. Discussion and Findings on the meritsThe Policy requires Complainant to prove three elements:
(a) 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;
(b) the Respondent has no rights 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.
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or InterestsThe Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the sign OLYMPIA LE-TAN based on its registration of the same as a trademark in several jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s aforementioned trademark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark OLYMPIA LE-TAN except for the hyphen, combined with the suffix “.com.cn”. The hyphen and the applicable Top-Level Domain and the Second-Level Domain in the disputed domain name (here “.com.cn”) may be disregarded by the Panel under the first element confusing similarity test. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests and the first element required by the Policy is fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsOn the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant makes out a prima facie case that that the Respondent is not, and has never been, an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor of the Complainant, is not a bona fide provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name and is not making legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent. However, no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply.
Upon review of the facts, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directs to an inactive error webpage. In this regard, the Panel concludes that holding a domain name passively, without making any use of it, does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent.
Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, being almost identical to both the Complainant’s trademark for OLYMPIA LE-TAN and to its official domain name
The Panel therefore considers that none of the circumstances of rights or legitimate interests envisaged by Article 10 of the Policy apply. The Panel also notes that no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements for the second element under the Policy.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithThe registration of the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, is clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers away from the Complainant’s official website hosted at the domain name
As to use in bad faith, the disputed domain name links to an inactive website. However, the Panel considers that holding a domain name passively does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case, and attributes particular relevance to the fact that the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark except for the hyphen, to the high degree of distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, including in China, and to the unlikelihood of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put by the Respondent. In these circumstances, the Panel considers that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. On the basis of the foregoing elements, the Panel finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Further, we note the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has been engaged in a pattern of registering the domain names incorporating third party trademarks. Within the limits of the evidence provided, the Panel is unable to make a finding on this point. However, the Panel notes that for the purposes of rendering a decision on this case, it is unnecessary to decide on this specific point.
Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under the Policy.
7. 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
Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2022