{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101557",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-07-28 08:49:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "lovehoney.online"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Lovehoney Group Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BrandIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Li Wei Wei"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims to be the largest online sex toy retailer in the UK and rapidly expanding internationally as a retailer, manufacturer and distributor.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it received several awards for its activity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that its trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that it enjoys a high degree of renown around the world, including in China where the Respondent is based. The Complainant submits that this renown is due to the extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that it registered a number of domain names under generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains containing the term “LOVEHONEY”, for example, <lovehoney.com> (created on December 1, 1998), <lovehoney.net> (created on December 5, 2001) and <lovehoney.us> (created on April 30, 2006). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that these domain names are pointing to websites through which it informs potential customers about its \"LOVEHONEY\" trademark and its products and services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Disputed domain name, registered on April 11, 2017, directly and entirely incorporates its registered trademark \"LOVEHONEY\". The Complainant argues that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.online” does not add any distinctiveness to the domain name, therefore the Disputed domain name should be considered as identical to the registered trademark \"LOVEHONEY\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the incorporation of the \"LOVEHONEY\" trademark into the Disputed domain name creates the impression that the Respondent is somehow affiliated with the Complainant, and the Respondent is somehow doing business using the Complainant`s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that it has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the WHOIS information “Le Wei Wei” is the only evidence in the WHOIS record, which relates the Respondent to the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has not by virtue of the content of the website, nor by the use of the Disputed domain name shown that the latter is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant asserts that when entering the terms “LOVEHONEY” and “China” in the Google search engine, the top returned result points to the Complainant and its business activity. The Complainant points out that the Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the Disputed domain name and would have quickly learnt that the \"LOVEHONEY\" trademarks are owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks extensively in China and around the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that 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. The Complainant asserts that it is clear that the purpose of the Disputed domain name registration is to take advantage of an association with the Complainant’s business.\t\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent is using the Disputed domain name to attract internet users to the Respondent's website where it is used the \"LOVEHONEY\" logotype and slogan “the sexual happiness people” prominently on the top left hand side of the page. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Respondent is not authorized to use the \"LOVEHONEY\" trademarks, and that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant submits that the use of the word \"LOVEHONEY\" in the Disputed domain name and also on multiple occasions in the website text further creates the impression that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that, due to the fact that the trademark \"LOVEHONEY\" is a well-known trademark and given the references to this trademark on the Respondent's website and unauthorised use of the logotype, it is clear that the Respondent knows about the existence of the \"LOVEHONEY\" trademark. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant underlines that the website invites visitors to contact the Respondent via the “Contact Us” form accessible on the \"Contact Us\" page. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent is not offering the Complainant’s products or services through the Disputed domain name, but rather appears to be offering similar products and possible fakes and counterfeits and claims to be a discount outlet, offering up to 77% discount.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent has not published on the website's pages any disclaimer clarifying that no relationship exists between the Respondent and the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent is depriving the Complainant of reflecting its own mark in the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Respondent presents itself as the trademark owner by using the Complainant`s official \"LOVEHONEY\" trademark and logotype.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that, by sending a \"cease and desist\" letter and reminders, the Respondent has been granted several opportunities to present some compelling arguments that it has rights in the Disputed domain name but has failed to do so. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that this behavior coupled with the use of the Disputed domain name cannot be considered as legitimate use of the Disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that its trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed domain name and that the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the fact that the Disputed domain name includes the entire trademark of the Complainant is a further factor supporting a conclusion of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the Disputed domain name connected to a website appearing as an online shop selling the same kind of products offered for sale on the Complainant's official website. The Complainant takes the view that in this context is clear that the Respondent is taking advantage of the \"LOVEHONEY\" trademark by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s products, services, website or location. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it carried out a WHOIS lookup using the Respondent's e-mail address and it found 171 domain names, including domain names containing well-known trademarks. Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the Respondent was the unsuccessful part in a recent Uniform Rapid Suspension case. The Complainant pointed out that such a conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith according to Paragraph (6) (ii) of the Policy. \r\n\r\nIn light of the above, the Complainant requests the transfer in its favor of the Disputed domain name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "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": "Language of the Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that \"unless 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\".\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese, therefore the language of the proceedings should be Chinese, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The Complaint, however, was filed in English. Further to the notification of the Complaint's deficiency, the Complainant submitted a request to change the language of the proceedings into English based, inter alia, on the following reasons:\r\n\r\n1) the Complainant's business language is English and the Disputed domain name includes the Complainant's trademark \"LOVEHONEY\" in its entirety;\r\n\r\n2) the Respondent has registered a significant number of domain names containing words in English, therefore it is unlikely that the Respondent is not at least familiar with the English language;\r\n\r\n3)  the Respondent did not reply to the \"cease and desist\" letter and reminders sent in English, nor responded asking for the translation of the content of the letters in Chinese;\r\n\r\n4) the Disputed domain name is in Latin characters and not in Chinese characters;\r\n\r\n5) the content of the website associated with the Disputed domain name is in English;\r\n\r\n6) the top-level domain chosen, \".online\", is addressed to a broad audience and not limited to China;\r\n\r\n7) the Complainant is a company based in the United Kingdom and translating the Complaint into Chinese would cause unnecessary delay and problems.\r\n\r\nHaving considered the Complainant's submission regarding the language of the proceedings and the overall circumstances of this case, including the fact that English is used in the Respondent's website, the Panel accepts English as language of the proceedings.\r\n\r\nThe 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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-08-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- EU Trademark No. 3400298 \"LOVEHONEY\" (word), filed on October 10, 2003 and registered on January 17, 2005, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28, 35;\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration No. 1091529, \"LOVEHONEY\" (word), based on the above-cited EU Trademark and registered on June 27, 2011, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28, 35. This international trademark registration designates, among others, China.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on April 11, 2017. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LOVEHONEY.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}