{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103917", "time_of_filling": "2021-07-07 09:38:14", "domain_names": [ "lpvehoney.com", "lovehoneyy.com", "lovehhoney.com", "loovehoney.com", "llovehoney.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Lovehoney Group Limited " ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "yan zhang" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 2002. The Complainant is one of the largest British companies selling sex toys, lingerie and erotic gifts on the Internet continuing to grow rapidly across the world as a retailer, manufacturer and distributor. The Complainant distributes its products to 46 countries in Europe, North America and Australasia through 9 websites. The Complainant, websites and the products the Complainant sells have received numerous awards. The Complainant also enjoys a strong online presence via its official websites and social medias. \r\n\r\nAll of the disputed domain names were registered on December 15, 2020.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\ni) The Complainant has rights in trademark LOVEHONEY (e.g., US trademark registration No. 3350209 LOVEHONEY registered on December 11, 2007; international trademark registration No. 1091529 LOVEHONEY registered on June 27, 2011, etc.). Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LOVEHONEY.\r\n\r\nii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent bears no relationship to the Complainant or its LOVEHONEY trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right or license to use LOVEHONEY trademark nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form or has endorsed or sponsored the Respondent or the Respondent's website. The disputed domain names redirect to the Complainant’s official websites, unrelated websites, or landing pages which do not make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. \r\n \r\niii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. It is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant and its trademark when he registered the disputed domain names due to the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark and the typosquatting practice. The Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names redirect to the official website of the Complainant or websites supposedly offering for sales unrelated products such as spices or mushrooms. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling them to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names. The Whois information associated with the disputed domain names shows a privacy shield hiding the registrant’s identity and contact details. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not submit a response.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings \r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Japanese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Japanese. The Complainant has alleged that because the Respondent has knowledge of the English language and understands English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. See FilmNet Inc. v Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum February 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). \r\nIn accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 11(a), 10(b) and 10(c), the Complainant requests that the Panel determine English to be the language of the proceeding for the following reasons: (a) the disputed domain names are composed of the misspelled version of brand name “LOVEHONEY” or very common English words “love” and\/or “honey” that consists of very common English terms “love” and “honey” which proves that the Respondent understands English well; (b) the choice of registering and using domain names with English terms shows that the Respondent’s intention is to target Internet users who understand English; (c) majority of the disputed domain names redirect to the official websites of the Complainant displayed in English; (d) the Respondent replied to the cease-and-desist letter in English language fully understanding the content of such C&D letter that was sent in English; (e) the English language, being commonly used internationally, would be considered as neutral and fair for both parties in the present case; and (f) should the language of the Registration Agreement be different from English, a translation of the Complaint in such a language would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and delay in the proceedings.\r\nPursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of a Response and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all other 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 is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the LOVEHONEY trademark such as such as but not limited to:\r\n- Chinese trademark registration No. 27012901 LOVEHONEY registered on October 7, 2019;\r\n- US trademark registration No. 3350209 LOVEHONEY registered on December 11, 2007; and\r\n- International trademark registration No. 1091529 LOVEHONEY registered on June 27, 2011 designating Australia, Switzerland, China, Iceland, Japan, Norway, New Zeeland, Russian Federation and Singapore.", "decision_domains": { "LPVEHONEY.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "LOVEHONEYY.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "LOVEHHONEY.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "LOOVEHONEY.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "LLOVEHONEY.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }