{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102817",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-17 09:25:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "kikocosmetic.shop"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "KIKO S.p.a."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Claudio Tamburrino (Barzanò & Zanardo Milano S.p.A.)",
    "respondent": [
        "MAO HUI"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Kiko S.p.A., was founded in 1997 and has been active in the cosmetics field for more than 20 years. The Complainant offers a wide range of products from make-up to skin care products. Today, the company has over 670 stores around the world, with presence in 34 countries. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the registered word marks KIKO and KIKOCOSMETICS in several classes in numerous countries all over the world, including in China where the Respondent is located.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been registered on November 18, 2018 by the Respondent. The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been authorized to register or use the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant further contends that the incorporation of the Complainant’s well-known trademark in the disputed domain name by the Respondent coupled with an inactive website evidences bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.",
    "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.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Complaint was filed in English and that the Case Administrator informed the Complainant on December 17, 2019 that the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. In the Amended Complaint, Complainant requested that the Complaint be accepted in English because\r\n“- neither the Complainant, nor its representatives, understand Chinese. It would therefore, be quite burdensome and expensive for the Complainant to translate this Complaint with all its annexes. Moreover, requiring a Chinese translation of all documents would unnecessarily delay this procedure, while one of its main advantages is its short timeframe. The abusive use of the disputed domain name has already created substantial damages to the Complainant’s image and reputation and extending the deadlines of this UDRP procedure would unduly increase these damages;\r\n- the disputed domain name is composed by English words (i.e. cosmetics and shop);\r\n- English is the primary business and commercial language and is therefore widely spoken and understood in these fields.”\r\n\r\nWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1, states: “panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language\/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, (iii) any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name, (iv) prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language, (v) prior correspondence between the parties, (vi) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, (vii) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (viii) in cases involving multiple domain names, the use of a particular language agreement for some (but not all) of the disputed domain names, (ix) currencies accepted on the webpage under the disputed domain name, or (x) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement.”\r\n\r\nHere, the language\/script of the disputed domain name is the same as that of the Complainant’s marks. Further, Respondent has not objected to English as the language of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Complaint in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the holder of trademark rights for the following word marks:\r\n\r\n- KIKO, registered in numerous jurisdictions, including in China where the Respondent is located (e.g. Chinese trademark No. 12234928 since August 14, 2014, and covering products in class 3);\r\n- KIKOCOSMETICS, registered in numerous jurisdictions (e.g. EU trademark No. 8454126 since January 31, 2010, and covering products in classes 3 and 35).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "KIKOCOSMETIC.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}