Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106767

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

According to the most relevant UDRP case law, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.

Given what stated by the Complainant and without any response from the Respondent, the Panel infers that there is no indication that the disputed domain name was intended to be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as required by the Policy.

The evidentiary burden shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name. However, the Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).

The Panel thus finds that Complainant has proven the second element of the Policy.

***

The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of 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.

The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, of the disputed domain name, neither 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. Indeed, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark GENSHIN IMPACT. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.

Here, Complainant has specifically argued that bad faith exists pursuant to, inter alia, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, because the disputed domain name resolves to an unauthorized website merchandising GENSHIN IMPACT-related products, where the Complainant’s copyrighted images and trademarks are widely displayed without any authorization, thus contributing to create a confusing similarity with the Complainant’s business activity, which obviously cannot be avoided by a mere disclaimer underlining this would be a "fanmade website". Indeed, a fan site should be genuinely noncommercial and clearly distinct from any official complainant site to be registered in good faith, and this is not the case.

It is quite undeniable that the Respondent is intentionally creating the false impression of affiliation to or endorsement by the Complainant, thus disrupting the Complainant’s business in an attempt to exploit the renown of the GENSHIN IMPACT trademark notoriety.

Consequently, the believes that that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.