{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100278", "time_of_filling": "2011-06-28 09:19:39", "domain_names": [ "ECCOSHOESUK.NET" ], "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ECCO SKO A\/S" ], "complainant_representative": "Chas. Hude A\/S", "respondent": [ "linlin" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademark ECCO in full, together with some generic terms, which meaning is related to Complainant's business. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)).\r\n\r\nRespondent has no rights in the trademark ECCO and is not a reseller\/licensee of Complainant, use of the trademark ECCO by Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant, and Respondent is using his website to promote the sale of third parties goods as well as goods, which are very likely counterfeit. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)).\r\n\r\nECCO constitute the first and dominant element of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s logo and pictures taken from Complainant's website and catalogue are used by the Respondent, who is attempting to divert Internet users to his domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion. Respondent is exploiting the goodwill attached to Complainant's trademarks for selling goods which are very likely counterfeit. For all these reasons, Complainant finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)).\r\n\r\nIn all the aforementioned circumstances, Complainant finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. WIPO’s decisions in the following complaint proceedings support the case:\r\n\r\nD2010-2038, eccodiscount.com \r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-2038) \r\nD2010-1443, eccobrandshop.com, ecooshop.com\r\nhttp:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1443)\r\nD2010-1113, 51ecco.com\r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1113)\r\nD2010-0650, eccoshoesoutlet.com, eccoshoesoutlets.com, eccoshoesoutlets.net \r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0650.html) \r\n\r\nLanguage\r\nIt has not been possible to obtain information on the language of the Registration Agreement. In any case, Complainant respectfully requests that the language of these proceedings be English. \r\n\r\nBoth the disputed domain name and the web site to which the domain name resolves are in English. Moreover, Respondent’s e-mail addresses are also in English. \r\n\r\nFor all these reasons it must be assumed that Respondent has good command of the English language. \r\n\r\nMoreover, Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged if forced to translate the complaint to Chinese. WIPO’s decision in the case D2010-1443, eccobrandshop.com, ecooshop.com (http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1443) supports the case.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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\nAlthough the Complaint was filed in English and the registrar has stated that the language of the registration agreement is Chinese, the Panel exercises its authority pursuant to Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, \"having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding,\" to allow these proceedings to occur in English. In this regard, the Panel notes that the Complainant has stated that \"[b]oth the disputed domain name and the web site to which the domain name resolves are in English. Moreover, Respondent’s e-mail addresses are also in English... Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged if forced to translate the complaint to Chinese.\" Allowing this proceeding to occur in English is consistent with numerous decisions under the UDRP, including at least one decision brought by the same Complainant as in the instant case, ECCO sko A\/S v. Lin Ronghua \/ Mr. Lin, WIPO Case No. D2010-1443 (transfer of ), in which the panel found that \"evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language.\" This Panel finds similar factual circumstances in this case.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Douglas M. Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2011-08-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Complainant has cited multiple trademark registrations for ECCO for use in connection with footwear, including Community Trademarks Reg. Nos. 001149871 and 004568168; US Trademark Reg. Nos. 1935123 and 3187658; Canadian Trademark Reg. No. 280654; Australian Trademark reg. No. 375267A; and Chinese Trademark Reg. Nos. 208743.", "decision_domains": { "ECCOSHOESUK.NET": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }