FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
1. As the language of the registration agreement is Vietnamese, the Complainant filed a request that the language of the proceeding should be English based on the fact that (a) the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's cease and desist letter and reminders, and more particularly has not responded that he did not understand the content of the letter, (b) the disputed domain name contains the Trademark, and the Complainant company's language is English and (c) the disputed domain name contains the Trademark coupled with a hyphen and the letters “vn”, which is an abbreviation in the English language of the country code for Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located. This means that the Respondent is aware of the use of the English language by adding the letters "vn” to the disputed domain name while registering it; and (d) translation of the Complaint would cause unnecessary delay and the Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, as the translation would raise high costs.
2. The Complainant was founded in 1979 in Denmark and currently focuses on two niche brands, an antiperspirant “Perspirex”, and a sunscreen “P20”. The Complainant sells its products in different markets worldwide, including Asia.
3. The disputed domain name was registered on September 26, 2016 and directly and entirely incorporates the Trademark, coupled with a hyphen and the letters “vn”, which is the commonly known country code for Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located. This exaggerates the impression that the Respondent is somehow affiliated with the Complainant, and the Respondent is somehow legitimately doing business in Viet Nam using the Trademark. For the above reasons, the disputed domain name should be considered as confusingly similar to the Trademark.
4. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, as the Respondent has not by virtue of the content of the website, nor by its use of the disputed domain name shown that it will be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. It is clear that the Complainant has become a distinctive identifier associated with the Trademark and that the intention of the disputed domain name is to take advantage of an association with the business of the Complainant. At the time of the filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. The Respondent has made no claims to neither having any relevant prior rights of its own, or to having become commonly known by the disputed domain name. Clearly, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor does the Respondent claim to have made legitimate, non-commercial use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant had never authorized the Respondent to use the Trademark in any form.
5. The Trademarks significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant has a strong business presence in the Asian continent where the Respondent resides. These facts clearly demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of the Trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter and a reminder to the Respondent´s email address listed in the whois record. No reply was received and the Respondent has simply disregarded such communication. The failure of a respondent to respond to a cease and desist letter, or a similar attempt at contact, has been considered relevant in a finding of bad faith in earlier UDRP cases. Further, the inaction in relation to a domain name registration can also constitute a domain name being used in bad faith and any attempt to actively use the disputed domain name would lead to confusion as to the source, sponsorship of the Respondent´s web site among the internet users who might believe that the web site is owned or in somehow associated with the Complainant. These cumulative factors clearly demonstrate that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|