1. Language of the proceedings
Article 11(a) of the Rules provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese.
The Panel shall use its discretionary authority to decide that the language of the proceedings shall be English for the following reasons:
(a) the Respondent received the Complainant's communications and failed to reply and therefore did not express in any way that he cannot answer the allegations since he does not understand English;
(b) the Complainant submitted credible evidence that disputed domain name resolves to a website which is in English, making it reasonably likely that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand the Complaint and file a response; and
(c) the Complainant has submitted its Complaint and supporting evidence in English and, therefore, if the Complainant were required to submit all documents in Vietnamese, the administrative proceeding would be unduly delayed and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation.
(cf. Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Domain Admin, whoisprotection.biz / Emrecan ARSLAN, WIPO Case No. D2015-0298).
2. Substantive issues
a. The disputed domain name includes the entire Trademark with the addition of an hyphen, which does not take away the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trademark, especially not as the spacing between SELECTED and HOMMES can either be left out or replaced by a hyphen for technical reasons. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
b. The Panel finds the Complainant has established that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed domain name, nor is commonly known under the Disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name.
c. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire Trademark, while the Trademark is so distinctive that it is likely that the Respondent was familiar with the Trademark when heregistered the disputed domain name. Further, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent also used the disputed domain name in bad faith as it resolves to a website which seems to be a mock up of an original website of the SELECTED Group of companies and is using the Trademark prominently. Accordingly the website under the disputed domain name is misleading in the sense that Internet users could believe that the website is an original website of the SELECTED Group of companies, offering original products under the Trademark.
|