{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100406",
    "time_of_filling": "2012-02-23 14:38:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "ECCOSKOTILBUD.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ECCO Sko A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "xiaolansun"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nLanguage\r\nNotwithstanding the fact that the Registration Agreement is very likely in Chinese, for the following reasons the Complainant respectfully request that the language of the proceedings be English:\r\n\r\nThe text displayed on the adverse website is partly in Danish and partly in English. For what regards the Respondent’s use of the Danish language, this text has probably been generated using some online translation tool (resulting in many errors and the general non-sense of much of the text provided in Danish on the website). Since the Complainant is a Danish-based company, we believe that the Respondent is aiming at enhancing the risk of consumer confusion by using some Danish texts on the website.  \r\n\r\nOn the other hand, part of the text displayed is in English. Furthermore, the buyer of the Respondent’s goods can pay in USD, CAD, GBP, which shows that the Respondent ships his goods to English-speaking countries and is able to provide customer support in English. Finally, it is apparently possible to choose the language of the Respondent’s homepage, and one of the languages provided is English (this feature was not working when this Complaint was draft) (annex 7). Altogether, these circumstances show that the Respondent has a good command of the English language and would not be disadvantaged if the proceedings were conducted in English. \r\n\r\nLegal basis\r\nThe Domain Name contains Complainant's trademark ECCO in full. The addition of the generic terms SKO and TILBUD does not preclude but even enhance the risk of confusion \/ likelihood of association with the Complainant’s trademark and company name. Therefore, the 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. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)).\r\n\r\nThe fact that the Complainant’s trademark ECCO constitutes the dominant element of the Domain Name, and that the Complainant’s logo and pictures are used by the Respondent without the rightful owner’s authorization constitute strong evidence of the fact that the Respondent is attempting to divert Internet users to his Domain Name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, company name and domain names. The Respondent’s use of the trademark ECCO to sell counterfeit\/fake ECCO shoes is a further evidence of the abusive registration and use of the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nFor all these reasons, Complainant finds that the Domain Name was registered and is used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)).\r\n\r\nThe following decisions support the case:\r\n\r\nCAC:\r\nCase No. 100357, ECCO-STOVLER.COM \r\nCase No. 100259, ECCOSHOESSHOP.COM\r\nCase No. 100278, ECCOSHOESUK.NET\r\nCase No. 100311, UKECCOSHOES.NET\r\nCase No. 100321, ECCOSKOUDSALG.COM\r\nCase No. 100312, ECCOSALEONLINE.COM\r\nCase No. 100305, ECCOONLINESALE.COM\r\nCase No. 100327, ECCOONLINESALEUSA.COM\r\n\r\nWIPO:\r\nCase No. D2010-2038, ECCODISCOUNT.COM \r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-2038) \r\nCase No. D2010-1443, ECCOBRANDSHOP.COM, ECOOSHOP.COM\r\nhttp:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1443)\r\nCase No. D2010-1113, 51ECCO.COM\r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1113)\r\nCase No. D2010-0650, ECCOSHOESOUTLET.COM, ECCOSHOESOUTLETS.COM, ECCOSHOESOUTLETS.NET \r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0650.html) ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided decision relating to the disputed domain name (hereinafter the \"Domain Name\")",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The case, 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).\r\n\r\n",
    "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\nThe Panel  first addresses the issue of the language of the proceedings, since, as the Complainant also pointed out, the language of the Registration Agreement is not English but probably Chinese.\r\n\r\nUnder Paragraph11(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\"), \"[u]nless 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\nAccordingly, the Panel has the authority to determine a different language of the administrative proceeding with respect to that of the Registration Agreement, when the circumstances of the case so require. Panels in earlier cases have found that, in certain situations, where the respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint (or having been given a fair chance to object has not done so), and the complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, the Center as a provider may accept the language of the complaint, even if it is different from the language of the registration agreement. Such acceptance is subject to the panel's authority to determine the appropriate language of the proceeding on appointment. Likewise, in appropriate circumstances, a response in a language different from that of the complainant may be accepted.\r\n\r\nIn the instant case, the Complainant is fluent in English and Danish. The Complaint was filed in English and previous cases regarding the same Complainant were also decided in English. As far as the Respondent is concerned, he is apparently a Chinese citizen or company (the address provided at the time of the registration of the Domain Name indicates a city located in China). At the same time, however, the Domain Name resolves to an English and Danish website. While, as the Complainant points out, the Danish language used in the website contains several mistakes that entail that the website has been translated through an automatic tool, such as Google translator, the English website denotes a fairly good knowlege of English.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, it is plausible that the Respondent is fluent in English, or at least that he understands English without difficulties. On the contrary, it is likely that the Complainant is not capable of speaking or reading Chinese. Filing the Complaint in Chinese would therefore place a too heavy burden on the Complainant in view of the circumstances of the case.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent had the possibility to object to the use of English had he filed a Response to the Complaint. However, the Respondent failed to file any Response and therefore implicitly accepted the use of English in the instant case.\r\n\r\nFor the aforementioned reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel  determines that English shall be the language of this administrative proceeding.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-04-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has shown that it owns many registrations over the ECCO trademark in numerous countries worldwide in connection with, inter alia, footwear. Among the cited trademarks are Chinese registration No. 208743 (registration date 30 May 1984) and Chinese registration No. G738941 (registration date 31 October 2005). Moreover, the Complainant owns two CTMs, namely registration No. 1149871 (registered on 6 February 2003), and registration No. 2967040 (registered on 2 May 2007), as well as two US registrations, respectively No. 1935123 (registered on 14 November 1995) and 3090429 (registered on 9 May 2006), and two Canadian registrations, No. TMA280654 (registered on 26 March 1983) and TMA752707 (registered on 10 November 2009) . \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also holds a large portfolio of domain names consisting of, or containing the name ECCO, including ECCO.CN (see Annex 4 to the Complaint)",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ECCOSKOTILBUD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}