{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101486", "time_of_filling": "2017-03-30 13:50:20", "domain_names": [ "arla.site" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Arla Foods Amba" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "nashan" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a Danish company which is a global dairy company and co-operative with operations worldwide.\r\n\r\nIt is owned by 12,650 dairy farmers in seven countries. The company has operations worldwide, including throughout the Asia Pacific region and specifically in China, where it has an office in Beijing. The company has over 19,000 employees worldwide and reached global revenue of EUR 10.3 billion in 2015.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a series of registered trademark for ARLA in numerous of countries around the world. \r\n\r\nFor example, the International Trademark Registration Number IR 0731917 for ARLA which was issued by the World Intellectual Property Organisation on March 20, 2000, applies internationally including in China where the Respondent is apparently domiciled ( \"the ARLA trademark\"). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also relies on the Danish local trademark registration VR2000 01185 for ARLA FOODS, registered in 2000).\r\n\r\nThese trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “Arla” and “Arla Foods” see for example (created on 2002-12-16) (created on 1999-10-01), < arla.com> (created on 1996-07-15), (created on 1999-10-01) and (created on 2000-02-21). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant uses the domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its trademarks and its products and services.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on January 29, 2017. It does not presently resolve to an active website.", "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.", "no_response_filed": "CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES\r\n\r\nA. THE COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nLANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS REQUEST\r\n\r\nThe Complainant request that the language of the proceeding should be English based on the following facts:\r\n\r\na) The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s mark ARLA. Complainant is a Danish company whose business language is English; \r\n\r\nb) considering that the Respondent has registered many domains with words in English, it is unlikely that the Respondent is not familiar with the English language.\r\n\r\nc) the Disputed domain name is in Latin script rather than Chinese script.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Respondent has chosen to register the Disputed domain name under the Top Level domain “.site” which is a commercial TLD and an English term meaning “website”, applicable to a broader audience than merely China.\r\n If the Chinese language were made the language of the proceeding there would be trouble and delay and no discernible benefit to the parties. \r\n\r\n ABOUT COMPLAINANT AND THE BRAND ARLA (“Arla”)\r\n\r\nArla is a global dairy company and co-operative owned by 12,650 dairy farmers in seven countries, with operations worldwide, including in China and over 19,000 employees worldwide.\r\n\r\n\r\nOverview of the Complainant’s trademark registrations.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark ARLA as a word mark and device in numerous of countries all over the world, including in China where the Respondent resides as well as the word mark ARLA FOODS. \r\nSee as an example the International Trademark Registration Number IR 0731917 (registered in 2000), and the Danish local trademark registration VR2000 01185 (registered in 2000).\r\n\r\nThe registrations are more particularly described in \r\n\r\n(a) Trademark Registration no. Class Date of Registration Type of Registration\r\nARLA (word mark) IR 0731917 01, 05, 29, 30, 31, 32 20\/03\/2000 International registration (incl China).\r\n\r\n(b) ARLA FOODS VR2000 01185 01,05,29,30,31 y 32 06\/03\/2000 Local registration in Denmark.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed domain name by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nDue to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown around the world, including in China where the Respondent is located. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark rights have previously been recognised in several UDRP decisions, namely WIPO Case no: D2016-1205, Arla Foods Amba v Frederik enghall concerning the domain name ; WIPO Case no: DMX2016-0012, Arla Foods Amba v Zhao Ke concerning the domain name ; WIPO Case no: DAU2016-0001, Arla Foods Amba v. Graytech Hosting Pty Ltd. ABN 49106229476, Elizabeth Rose concerning the domain name ; WIPO Case no: DME2015-0010 Arla Foods amba v. Ye Li concerning the domain name ; and Case no. 101058 Arla Foods amba v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd concerning the domain name .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “Arla” and “Arla Foods”; see for example, (created on 2002-12-16) (created on 1999-10-01), < arla.com> (created on 1996-07-15), (created on 1999-10-01) and (created on 2000-02-21). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is using the domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its trademarks and its products and services.\r\n\r\nLEGAL GROUNDS:\r\n\r\ni) THE DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered on January 29, 2017.\r\n\r\nIt directly and entirely incorporates Complainant’s well-known, registered trademark ARLA. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) “.site”, meaning “website”, does not add any distinctiveness to the Domain Name. The Disputed domain name incorporates the ARLA trademark coupled with the word “.site”. That term is therefore closely connected to the Complainant’s marketing efforts online and gives the impression that the Respondent is somehow affiliated with the Complainant, and that the Respondent is somehow doing business using Complainant`s trademark. See, WIPO Overview on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (\"WIPO Overview 2.0\"), paragraph 1.2., as well as the decision in International Business Machines Corporation v. Sledge, Inc. \/ Frank Sledge WIPO Case No. D2014-0581 where the Panel stated the following “In addition, it is generally accepted that the addition of the top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., “.com”) is to be disregarded under the confusing similarity test”. \r\n\r\nThis reasoning should apply here and the Disputed domain name should be considered as being identical to the registered trademark ARLA. \r\n\r\nii) THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed domain name. The WHOIS information giving “nashan” as the registrant is the only evidence in the WHOIS record, which relates the Respondent to the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not used the Disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or is preparing to use, the Disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The intention of the Respondent is to take advantage of an apparent association with the Complainant’s business which does not exist. \r\n\r\nAt the time of the filing of this Complaint, the Disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, with a print screen on the Disputed domain name from March 28, 2017. The Respondent has made no claims to either 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 its trademark in any form. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has been granted several opportunities to present any compelling arguments that it has rights in the Disputed domain name but has failed to do so.\r\n\r\niii) THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s registered trademarks predate the registration of the Disputed domain name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the Disputed domain name. It is inconceivable that the unique combination of “arla” and “site” in the Disputed domain name is not a deliberate and calculated attempt to benefit improperly from the Complainant’s rights in the ARLA mark. \r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nThe Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on February 27, 2017 through a cease and desist letter. A reply was received asking for $800 to transfer the domain name. This conduct has been considered in previous cases as additional evidence of bad faith due to the Respondent´s intention to profit unduly from the Complainant´s rights; see WIPO Case No. D2016-0771 Facebook, Inc. vs. Domain Admin. Privacy Protection Service Inc. d\/b\/a Privacy Protection.org\/ Ông Trần Huỳnh Lâm.\r\n\r\nSince the efforts of trying to solve the matter amicably were unsuccessful, the Complainant chose to file a complaint according to the UDRP process. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE WEBSITE\r\n\r\nAs noted previously, the Disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website which the Complainant submits is a form of passive holding, showing bad faith.\r\n\r\nSome Panels have found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use, or of the mere “parking” by a third party of a domain name. See, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name in bad faith by intentionally adopting Complainant’s widely known mark in violation of the Complainant’s rights. \r\n\r\nFurther, the inaction in relation to a Disputed domain name registration can also constitute a Disputed domain name being used in bad faith and any attempt to use the Disputed domain name actively would lead to confusion as to the source, sponsorship of the Respondent´s web site among internet users who might believe that the web site is owned or in somehow associated with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant’s International and Chinese trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s Disputed domain name registration and the cease and desist letter was answered with a price for the transfer in excess of reasonable out of pocket expenses. \r\n\r\nPATTERN OF CONDUCT \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct showing bad faith. A pattern of conduct can involve multiple UDRP cases with similar fact situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names which are similar to trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent using its official email address 6360665@qq.com, as indicated in WHOIS Lookup record, has registered aprox. 612 domain names including well-known brands such as e.g. , , and . \r\n\r\nSuch pattern of abusive conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith according to Paragraph (6) (ii) of the Policy and this behaviour was declared as bad faith registration in WIPO case No. D2015-1932 Bayer AG of Leverkusen v. huang cheng of Shanghai and WIPO Case No DME2015-0010, Arla Foods amba v Ye Li, involving the domain , the Panel stated, on facts similar to those in the present case. Further, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's well-known and distinctive trademarks ARLA and ARLA FOODS at the time of registration of the Disputed domain name. The Complainant's trademark ARLA is registered in China, which is the Respondent's place of residence, and the Complainant was conducting business in China under the trademarks when the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed domain name was in bad faith. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent took advantage of the ARLA trademark by intentionally attempting to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website 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 a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent intentionally chose the Disputed domain name based on a registered and well-known trademark solely to use it for non-legitimate purposes. The conduct of the Respondent in registering domains incorporating other well-known trademarks demonstrates systematic bad faith behaviour. \r\n\r\nTo summarize, the trademark ARLA is a well-known mark worldwide, including in China where the Respondent is located. The Respondent bears no relationship to the trademarks and the Disputed domain name has no other meaning except for referring to the Complainant's name and trademark. There is no way in which the Disputed domain name could be used legitimately by the Respondent. Inference of bad faith registration and use of the Disputed domain name is also given by the fact that the Respondent replied to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter requesting an unreasonably high price for the Disputed domain name, namely $800.\r\n\r\nFurther, the Disputed domain name is being passively held, an additional element of bad faith in accordance with the applicable cases described in this Complaint. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent has shown a bad faith pattern of conduct through the registration of hundreds of domain names containing other well-known marks. \r\n\r\nConsequently, the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT DID NOT FILE A RESPONSE IN THIS PROCEEDING\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes the observations in the recent decision in similar circumstances in Case No 100053, Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company v. Blupea c\/o Janepanas, Sirinarin and will therefore decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, drawing such inferences from the Respondent’s default that are considered appropriate according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. It is also noted in that decision that it was said in Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Marco Costa, NAF case No. 908572, that “the Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory”. The Panel will therefore proceed along those lines.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-05-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "", "decision_domains": { "ARLA.SITE": "TRANSFERRED" } }