{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104489",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-04-20 09:26:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "lovehoney.design",
        "lovehoney.ink",
        "lovehoney.club"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Lovehoney Group Limited  "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Wu Ze Xin "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nA. Background history\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 2002 and is the largest British company selling sex toys, lingerie and erotic gifts on the Internet trading as a retailer, manufacturer and distributor. The Complainant has over 400 own brand products and exclusive licenses to design, manufacture and sell featured adult pleasure products, which the Complainant commercialises in 46 countries across Europe, North America and Australasia.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant enjoys a strong online presence via its official websites and social media channels, namely <lovehoney.com>; <lovehoney.eu>; <lovehoneygroup.com>; and <lovehoney.co.uk>.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the non-exhaustive list of trade marks mentioned in the above section “Identification of rights”, the Complainant informs that it is also the owner of numerous domain names which contain the term “LOVEHONEY”, including <lovehoney.com>, which was registered in 1998.\r\n\r\nBy way of relief, the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain names <lovehoney.design>, <lovehoney.ink>, and <lovehoney.club> to the Complainant (“the disputed domain names”) on the grounds advanced in section B below. \r\n\r\nB. Legal grounds\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain names <lovehoney.design>, <lovehoney.ink>, and <lovehoney.club> are identical to the Complainant’s trade mark LOVEHONEY; and that the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) <.design>, <.ink>, and <.club> should be disregarded in the assessment of this Policy ground given that a TLD is a domain name’s standard registration requirement. \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the disputed domain names were registered on 31 December 2021, many years after the registration of the Complainant’s trade mark LOVEHONEY, and that they resolve to inactive webpages (“the Respondent’s websites”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further avers that the Respondent has never been given any right or license to use the trade mark LOVEHONEY, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form or have the Respondent or the Respondent’s websites been endorsed or sponsored by the Complainant.  \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names, nor does the Respondent own any corresponding registered trade mark including the terms “lovehoney.design”, “lovehoney.ink”, “lovehoney.club” or the Respondent’s organisation “Wu Zen Xin”. The Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain names for legitimate non-commercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nIn order to further support the Complainant’s assertions under this Policy ground, the Complainant draws the Panel’s attention to paragraphs 2.5.1 and 3.3 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”).\r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain names. \r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith\r\n\r\nRegistration\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain names. The Complainant further states that it is very likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to take advantage of both the trade mark LOVEHONEY’s reputation and the Complainant’s goodwill.\r\n\r\nUse \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are being held passively, and that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy). \r\n\r\nIn order to further support the Complainant’s assertions under this Policy ground, the Complainant draws the Panel’s attention to paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.\r\n\r\nAs additional indicia giving rise to a presumption of bad faith, the Complainant refers to the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant informs that, by conducting a reverse Whois records with the email address of the Respondent, the Complainant has found multiple domain names registered by the Respondent, and some of which corresponding to well-known trade marks of individual brand owners. This would constitute a pattern of conduct of abusive domain name registration on the Respondent’s part. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade 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 matter – Language of Proceeding \r\n\r\nA. The Complainant’s request \r\n\r\nOn the matter of the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes as follows:\r\n\r\n• The Complainant submitted its Complaint in English and made a pre-emptive request that English be the language of the proceedings;\r\n\r\n• The registrar’s verification response provided that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese; and\r\n\r\n• The Complainant’s grounds for English to be the language of the proceedings can be summarised as follows: (i) the second-level portion of the disputed domain names are composed of the English words “love” and “honey”, as well as the choice of the English language gTLDs <.design>, <.ink>, and <.club>, prove that the Respondent understands the English language and aims to target English speaking Internet users; (ii) the Complainant is a UK based company whereas the Respondent appears to be located in China. Therefore, the English language, being commonly used internationally, would be considered as neutral for both Parties in the present case; and (iv) a translation of the Complaint would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and would delay the proceedings. \r\n\r\nB. The Panel’s determination\r\n\r\nThe Panel is given discretion under Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings. The Panel notes Rule 10 of the UDRP Rules, which vests the Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it deems appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.\r\n\r\nOn this particular matter, the Panel takes the liberty to adopt the language of proceeding test applied in CAC Case no. 104144, Writera Limited v. alexander ershov, which helpfully sets out the following six guiding factors:\r\n\r\n(i) the language of the disputed domain name string: the Panel accepts that English is the only identifiable language in the disputed domain name string;\r\n\r\n(ii) the content of the Respondent’s website: this factor carries no weight in the Panel’s determination of the language of the proceedings given that the disputed domain names do not resolve to active webpages, nor do they appear to have ever had any content;\r\n\r\n(iii) the language(s) of the Parties: the Complainant is originally from the UK and the Respondent appears to reside in China. Neither English nor Chinese would be considered neutral for both Parties. Consequently, this factor is immaterial to the Panel’s determination on this occasion;  \r\n\r\n(iv) the Respondent’s behaviour (pre-dispute and in the course of the proceedings): the Panel notes that the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in the proceedings; the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter, nor did it file a Response;\r\n\r\n(v) the Panel’s overall concern with due process: the Panel has discharged its duty under Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules; and\r\n\r\n(vi) the balance of convenience: while determining the language of proceedings, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel’s determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of proceedings – a widely spoken language – is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience, not least given the Respondent’s default and overall disinterest pre- and throughout the proceedings. The determination of Chinese as the language of proceedings, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of the proceedings under the UDRP Rules.\r\n\r\nIn view of the above factors, the Panel has decided to accept the Complainant’s language request, such that the decision in the present matter will be rendered in English. \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": [
        "Yana Zhou"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:\r\n\r\n• US trade mark registration no. 3350209, registered on 11 December 2007, for the word mark LOVEHONEY, in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 35 of the Nice Classification; \r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 1091529, registered on 27 June 2011, designating Australia, Switzerland, China, Iceland, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Russian Federation and Singapore, for the word mark LOVEHONEY, in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 35 of the Nice Classification;\r\n\r\n• EU trade mark registration no. 003400298, registered on 17 January 2005, for the word mark LOVEHONEY, in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 35 of the Nice Classification;\r\n\r\n• China trade mark registration no. 29693111, registered on 28 January 2020, for the work mark LOVEHONEY, in class 10 of the Nice Classification; and\r\n\r\n• China trade mark registration no. 27012901, registered on 7 October 2019, for the figurative mark LOVEHONEY, in class 10 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\n(hereinafter, collectively or individually, “the Complainant’s trade mark”; “the Complainant’s trade mark LOVEHONEY”; or “the trade mark LOVEHONEY” interchangeably).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LOVEHONEY.DESIGN": "TRANSFERRED",
        "LOVEHONEY.INK": "TRANSFERRED",
        "LOVEHONEY.CLUB": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}