The Complainant is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints / Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints / Intellectual Reserve, Inc., United States of America, represented by Reddie & Grose LLP, United Kingdom (“UK”).
The Respondent is R.S., Germany. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The disputed domain name is The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is STRATO AG. 3. Procedural History The Request to Change the Language of the ADR Proceeding (the “Request”) was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) pursuant to the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”), Paragraph A(3)(b), on July 31, 2020. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 3, 2020, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(3), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Request, and the proceedings commenced on August 4, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4), the due date for Response was August 16, 2020. An email communication was received from a third party on August 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a formal Response. The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 2020, in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4). 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background The Complaint does not provide any information on what the Complainant’s business or activity is, however it seems to be a church and related entities. There is likewise no information about any trademark rights that the Complainant holds. The disputed domain name was registered on December 4, 2018 and resolves to a website providing information on “[w]hy all churches claim to be the only true church of Jesus Christ”. The language of the registration agreement is German. There is no agreement between the Parties with regard to the applicable language in the ADR Proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests for a change of the language of the ADR Proceeding because the disputed domain name is formed of English words. In addition, the website hosted under the disputed domain name is in English. Moreover, the Complainant submitted a complaint in relation to the corresponding domain name The Respondent did not submit a formal response. However, on August 16, 2020, the Center received an informal email communication from a third party (Lisa Carlson) claiming to be the real Respondent. She further claimed that the registration agreement was concluded in German, the Respondent’s headquarters are in Germany and the Complainant’s representative has an office in Germany; therefore, there are no circumstances which justify a change of the language of the ADR proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with Paragraph A(3)(a) of the ADR Rules, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name. In the absence of an agreement between the Parties, the Panel may in its sole discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the ADR Proceeding, decide on the written request of a Complainant that the language of the ADR Proceeding will be different than the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name”. Also, Article 22(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (“PPR”) stipulates that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, unless otherwise agreed or specified in the registration agreement. Although the former requirement of exceptional circumstances for changing the language under Paragraph A(3)(a) ADR Rules was dropped with the changes of the ADR Rules in 2010, the principle with regard to the language of the ADR proceeding is still the same: The language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. Consensus view of ADR panels in accordance with Article 22(4) PPR and Paragraph A(3)(a) ADR Rules, is that the proper language is the language used in the registration agreement, an EU language otherwise specified therein or an EU language that both parties agreed on. Moreover, several panels in ADR proceedings have accepted the language desired by the complainant where that language was the national language of the respondent, provided the respondent did not indicate that he had knowledge of the language of the registration agreement. Similar decisions were reached when it appeared to be the case that the respondent had knowledge of the requested language and had only chosen the language of the registration agreement in order to make proceedings more complex. However, none of them applies to the present case. Moreover, the reference of the Complainant to the UK domain name case before the official registry for UK domain names is not decisive since the language of national proceedings regarding country code Top-Level Domains is the relevant national language. The evidence and contentions put forward by the parties, lead this Panel to the conclusion that the requested change of language of the ADR proceeding by the Complainant has no basis under Article 22(4) PPR and Paragraph A(3)(a) ADR Rules. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Request is denied. This Panel’s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal. Peter Burgstaller
Sole Panelist
Date: September 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy