DG Premium Brands LLC v. wang su qing
Claim Number: FA1909001860642
Complainant is DG Premium Brands LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Paul M. Gelb of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, California, USA. Respondent is wang su qing (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <7forallmankindjeansoutletsale.com>, registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 4, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 4, 2019.
On September 4, 2019, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <7forallmankindjeansoutletsale.com> domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 10, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@7forallmankindjeansoutletsale.com. Also on September 10, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 1, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in 7 FOR ALL MANKIND and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant sells clothing, including denim clothing, by reference to the trademark 7 FOR ALL MANKIND;
2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Trademark Reg. No. 2,890,644, registered October 5, 2004 for the trademark;
3. the disputed domain name was registered on December 10, 2018 and resolves to a website which lifts complete pages from Complainant’s official website, ostensibly offering the goods shown therein for sale; and
4. there is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes the Chinese language Registration Agreement. Under Rule 11(a), the language of these proceedings is therefore Chinese. Nevertheless, Complainant requests that the proceedings be in the English language. The Panel has discretion under the Rules to allow that request and in the past UDRP panels have taken account of factors which demonstrate a respondent’s proficiency with the English language.[i] Here, Complainant’s submission is that the resolving website uses English characters and words suggesting that Respondent is proficient in the English language.
Given that the Complaint is that Respondent has taken complete pages from Complainant’s website, it is no surprise the content is in English. This argument is barely persuasive. Nevertheless, the domain name itself combines the trademark with the English language words, “jeans,” “outlet,” and “sale”, which would only be chosen by someone having some capacity in English as the terms relate to the Complainant’s goods or its industry generally. There is just sufficient evidence for the Panel to determine that the proceedings should continue in English.
Moving on, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding based on Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.[ii]
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights.[iii] Since Complainant provides evidence of its USPTO trademark registration the Panel is satisfied that it has rights.
The domain name takes the trademark and adds non-distinctive words together with the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark[iv] and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved, based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.[v]
The publicly available WHOIS information shielded the domain name holder but in consequence of these proceedings the name of the underlying registrant (Respondent) was disclosed. Neither provides any prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights and Complainant states that it has not given Respondent permission to use the trademark for any purpose. The use of the disputed domain name is as described above and the Panel accepts Complainant’s submission that any goods sold from the website are counterfeit. The Panel finds that there has been no bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.[vi]
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case. The onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain name. In the absence of a Response, that prima facie case is not met and so Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.
On the evidence, there is equal scope for the application of paragraphs (iii) or (iv). The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. There is no apparent reason for Respondent to register the name in good faith since the trademark appears to only refer to Complainant’s business and has no other shown meaning. In the absence of another explanation, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that Respondent targeted Complainant trademark and business at the time of registration. The Panel finds registration in bad faith. Further, the Panel finds bad faith use since the resolving website either draws custom away from Complainant and so has the potential to disrupt it’s business, or in fact is used to sell competitive goods by reference to Complainant’s trademark[vii].
The Panel finds registration and use of the domain name in bad faith and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <7forallmankindjeansoutletsale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: October 11, 2019
[i] See, for example, The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009); see also (Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006).
[ii] See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum Jul. 31, 2000) holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true; Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”)
[iii] See, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum Jun. 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”)
[iv] See, for example, Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
[v] See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
[vi] See, for example, Gumwand Inc. v. jared brading, FA 1794058 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website which purported to sell chewing gum-removal equipment which was either counterfeit versions of complainant’s goods, or goods which competed directly with complainant’s chewing gum-removal equipment business, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
[vii] See, for example, Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to reference the complainant’s products and offer competitive and/or counterfeit products.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page