ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ETAM SAS v. 程飞 (Cheng Fei) Case No. DCN2026-0012 1. The Parties The Complainant is ETAM SAS, France, represented by Domgate, France. The Respondent is 程飞 (Cheng Fei), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with 北京网尊科技有限公司 (Beijing Wangzun Technology Co., Ltd.) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 17, 2026. On April 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 19, 2026, 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 English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 22, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, Articles 17 and 49, the due date for Response was May 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 19, 2026. The Center appointed Xu Lin as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2026. 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, ETAM SAS, is a French company specializing in lingerie products with presence and reputation. The Complainant’s first store was opened in 1916 in Germany. The group launched in China in 1994 and opened its first ETAM store in China in 2015. The group currently runs over 1,500 stores in European Union, Asia and other areas. The UNDIZ brand was launched by the Complainant in 2007. The Complainant and its group own the UNDIZ trademarks, including: - French trademark registration No. 3501625 in Classes 18, 25, and 35, registered on October 26, 2007; - Chinese trademark registration No. 78031593 in Class 25, registered on October 14, 2014; and - International trademark registration No. 969416 in Classes 18, 25, and 35, registered on May 29, 2008, designating among others China. The Complainant owns and operates the website at “www.undiz.com”, which offers its products to the public. The Respondent is 程飞 (Cheng Fei), an individual apparently located in China. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 14, 2025. Currently the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a pay-per-click website with a link redirecting users to another page offering a “buy now” price for EUR 1,850. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: Firstly, 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: - The Complainant has a considerable global presence and reputation. UNDIZ is well known over the world and in particular in China. The Complainant is the holder of numerous UNDIZ trademarks. - The disputed domain name is identical to the UNDIZ trademark, as the only difference is the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) and Second-Level Domain (“SLD”) “.com.cn”. There are prior cases where panels have considered that the ccTLD does not have any effect of distinguishing the disputed domain name from the complainant’s trademark. - As the Complainant owns the domain names under various ccTLDs incorporating the UNDIZ trademark in many countries, Internet users may mistakenly assume that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant. Secondly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: - The Respondent has never replied to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and reminder. The silence of the Respondent indicates its lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. - The Respondent is not the owner of any UNDIZ trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name gives access to the websites irrelevant to the
page 3 Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, including a pay-per-click website with a link to sell the disputed domain name at EUR 1,850. The pay-per-click website and the selling of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. - The Respondent has also been involved in other disputes for other domain names he owned. At least 30 previous decisions requiring the transfer of domain names from the Respondent to other trademark owners confirm that the Respondent regularly registers different trademarks as domain names without any rights, but to obtain money from the trademark owners with mala fide intention. Thirdly, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith: - The Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the well-known nature of the Complainant and of the trademarks UNDIZ when he registered the disputed domain name. The adjunction of the national extension “.com.cn” confirms the Respondent’s knowledge and mala fide intention. - The pay-per-click page attached to the disputed domain name reveals the intent of the Respondent for registering or acquiring the disputed domain name was to obtain unjustified benefits. - The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the marks from reflecting the marks in corresponding domain name. - The Respondent has been involved in at least 30 precedent cases, and there can be no doubt that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct. A Reverse WhoIs based on the Respondent’s email address shows that it is associated with many domain names that consist of well-known trademarks, confirming that the Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of making commercial benefits from its sale and has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. In view of the above, the Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding In accordance with Article 6 of the Policy and Article 8 of the Rules, the administrative proceeding shall be conducted in Chinese unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined in exceptional circumstances by the Panel. The Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English. It submits that the Respondent is familiar with English, as evidenced by the fact that the disputed domain name includes only Latin characters rather than Chinese script, and that the corresponding websites and sales pages attached to the disputed domain name were/are in English. The Complainant further demonstrates that the Respondent has previously participated in another two domain name administrative proceedings as a respondent, in which the Respondent’s English proficiency has been judicially established by the prior panels. Pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules, the Panel shall ensure that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceedings take place with due expedition.
page 4 The Panel observes that the Complaint was submitted in English. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolved, as well as the sales pages linking thereto, are all presented in English. These objective facts confirm the Respondent’s ability to understand and participate in this proceeding in English. The Respondent, despite being duly notified by the Center in both English and Chinese of the language of the proceeding and of the commencement of the proceeding, has not challenged the Complainant’s language request and in fact has failed to file a response in either English or Chinese. After considering all relevant circumstances, the Panel, exercising its discretion, determines that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or Interests The Complainant has established that it owns rights in the UNDIZ trademark. The disputed domain name is a combination of the Complainant’s UNDIZ trademark and the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) and SLD “.com.cn”. The TLD and SLD “.com.cn” may be disregarded by the Panel under the first element test. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s UNDIZ mark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests, and the condition of Article 8(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent’s name, “程飞 (Cheng Fei)”, is not related to the disputed domain name. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website with a link redirecting users to another page selling the disputed domain name for EUR 1,850. Such use constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant has therefore 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. Article 10 of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name before the Respondent receives the Complaint for the purposes of Article 8(b) of the Policy: (a) the Respondent uses of the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (b) the Respondent has been commonly known by the 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 domain name, without intent of or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. However, the Respondent failed to submit any argument or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the condition set forth in Article 8(b) of the Policy has been satisfied.
page 5 C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has been present in the Chinese market since 1994 and has gained recognition over time. Its UNDIZ brand, launched in 2007, has gained popularity in China. The Panel finds that the Respondent knew or should have known the UNDIZ trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name in December 2025. The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows the disputed domain name resolved to a pay-per-click website with a link redirecting users to another page offering the disputed domain name for sale at EUR 1,850 – most likely exceeding the ordinary cost of registering a domain name. This indicates that the Respondent’s primary intention in registering the disputed domain name was to sell it for obtaining unjustified benefits. Such conduct has also prevented the Complainant from using its own marks in a corresponding domain name. Furthermore, evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that the Respondent’s email address is linked to multiple domain names that incorporate third party trademarks. Panels in other cases filed under the Policy have also found that the same Respondent had registered and used the domain names incorporating third party trademarks in bad faith. 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. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s bad faith conduct falls into Articles 9(a) and (b) of the Policy. Considering the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith, and the condition of Article 8(c) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 name be transferred to the Complainant. /Xu Lin/ Xu Lin Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2026
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy