{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104450",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-03-31 09:40:28",
    "domain_names": [
        "shop-huawei.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO, LTD"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "cv SNB-REACT ua",
    "respondent": [
        "Sergei V Petrov"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 1987 and is a leading global provider of information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure and smart devices. The Complainant’s companies have approximately 197,000 employees and operate in over 170 countries and regions, serving more than three billion people around the world. The Complainant alleges that its HUAWEI trademarks are well-known worldwide. The disputed domain name was registered on September 29th, 2020. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the word “shop” descriptive of Complainant’s business and the .com gTLD. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that such additions do not prevent to find a confusing similarity, as the Complainant’s trademarks are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe .com gTLD should be disregarded and the prefix “shop” may lead consumers to believe that it is affiliated with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not the owner or licensee of the trademarks. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by such a name during trade and the Respondent did not receive any authorization from the Complainant to use its trademarks in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that there is no evidence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in this dispute.\r\n\r\nThe content of the website by the disputed domain name shows that the trademarks of the Complainant were displayed on that website together with the colours and aesthetics, font type and feel of the Complainant’s own official website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent has incorporated the Complainant’s trademark as an integral part of the disputed domain name with the clear intention of taking advantage of the distinctiveness, reputation, and notoriety of this distinctive sign. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to the “Oki data” test requirements noting that the website by the disputed domain name fails to accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder. Internet users may be confused and think that they are visiting a website which is related or affiliated with the Complainant and its products. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that several take down notices were sent to the Respondent, the Registrar and Internet Services Provider but there was no reaction.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant thus claims that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s submissions on the third UDRP element can be summarized as follows. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s intent in registering the disputed domain name was to obtain a profit or to exploit the Complainant’s Trademarks. The nature of the domain name and the distinctiveness of trademarks are relevant factors in this dispute, in the opinion of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by its actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the prior HUAWEI’s trademarks to register the disputed domain name and respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights demonstrates bad faith. Considering use of the disputed domain name the Respondent could not reasonably have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent was using without permission the Complainant’s well-known trademarks in order to get Internet users to its website to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created of a potential affiliation or connection with the Complainant, its trademarks or its products and services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by its substantial use in multiple countries and the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks, products and services, and this conduct additionally confirms that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. ",
    "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 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 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\nThere were two procedural factors in this proceeding for the Panel to consider.\r\n\r\nThe first issue is the notice of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant initially indicated a wrong e-mail address of the Respondent in its Complaint and the Registrar, Beget LLC, failed to correct it in its verification when confirming Respondent’s data. The Complainant initially indicated e-mail address of its own attorneys in Russia who helped obtain Respondent’s data and that error went unnoticed.\r\n\r\nThis resulted in delay as the Panel and the Provider had to correct the error in notification and the Provider gave extra time to the Respondent to provide his response.\r\n\r\nThe Panel highlights the importance of using correct contact details for the sake of proper notification about UDRP disputes and principles of fairness and it is Registrar’s obligation to both provide correct information about registrants and notice and correct any incorrect data.\r\n\r\nIn future both the Complainant and the Registrar shall avoid such mistakes.\r\n\r\nThe second issue is the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Registrar’s verification, the language of the registration agreement is Russian.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests the language of the proceeding shall be English based on the following:\r\n\r\n- It is more likely than not that the Registration Agreement is in the English language, as the disputed domain name is .com TLD and the Registrar has its own .com website also available in English. The Registrar is commonly known to state that the Registration Agreement is in Russian, but it provided no explanation in previous cases.\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name is in the Latin script, and not one of the special zones such as the.RU and. РФ zones, for instance. \r\n\r\n- The Complainant also refers to the English text of the registration agreement and its references to ICANN policies.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Panel first notes that paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceeding in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and it is Panel’s obligation to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.\r\n\r\nUnder par. 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules unless 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\nThe Panel needs to provide the balance of interests of both parties to the proceeding and provide them with a fair opportunity to present their case and explain their positions, on the one hand and to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition, on the other hand. \r\n\r\nBoth fairness and equal rights of the parties and speed and efficiency of the proceeding need to be maintained.\r\n\r\nSecond, the Panel notes that the website by the disputed domain name on the date of this decision is entirely in Russian. \r\n\r\nThere is no direct evidence indicating that the Respondent is able to communicate in English or that the website was targeted to English speakers: there is no English language content on the website by the disputed domain name and there was no direct communication in English between the Parties. The website by the disputed domain name seems to be targeting the Russian speaking audience.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar has both Russian and English language versions of the registration agreement and in relation to the disputed domain name the Registrar states that the language is Russian.\r\n\r\nThird, the Respondent failed to respond. \r\n\r\nCAC sent a new notification to the Respondent about commencement of this proceeding upon clarifying Respondent’s e-mail address in both English and Russian.\r\n\r\nThe Panel understands both English and Russian and is able to conduct the proceeding in both languages.\r\n\r\nExercising its rights under par. 10 (a) of the UDRP Rules the Panel issued a procedural order in both Russian and English and invited the Respondent to submit his response and arguments in either Russian or English.\r\n\r\nBased on the above the Panel finds that it provided fair opportunities to both parties. \r\n\r\nIn particular, the Respondent was given an opportunity to explain his position in Russian, but failed to do so. \r\n\r\nThe Panel was ready to accept the response in Russian. The Respondent also could have objected against the complaint and annexes in English and could have requested the proceeding to be conducted in Russian. The Respondent failed to respond.\r\n\r\nAs stated by one of the UDRP panels: “The spirit of Paragraph 11 is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties’ level of comfort with each language, the expenses to be incurred and the possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors” (see Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault, Dassault Aviation v. Mr. Minwoo Park, WIPO Case No. D2003-0989). \r\n\r\nPrevious UDRP decisions confirmed that a complaint may be filed in one language and a response can be submitted in the same or another language when the Panel is familiar with both languages: “to accept the Complaint in the language as filed, to accept a Response in either language, and to put the matter through for determination by a Panel familiar (wherever possible) with both languages” (see e.g. Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, WIPO Case No. D2008-1191 and Laverana GmbH & Co. KG v. Silkewang, Jiangsu Yun Lin Culture Communication Co., Ltd. \/ xia men yi ming wang luo you xian gong si, WIPO Case No. D2016-0721 and CAC Case No. 101646).\r\n\r\nTaking into account speed and efficiency of the proceeding, the spirit of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the UDRP Rules and circumstances of this dispute described above, including the fact that the Respondent was given an opportunity to provide his response in Russian and Panel’s knowledge of both languages, the Panel decides to proceed in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- The international registration “HUAWEI” (word) No.0748648, registered on December 4, 2000; \r\n\r\n- The EU trademark registration “HUAWEI” (word) No.008696775, registered on February 17, 2012;\r\n\r\n- The EU trademark registration “HUAWEI” (figurative: word and device) No.009967531, registered on December 16, 2011;\r\n\r\n- The EU trademark registration “HUAWEI” (figurative: word and device) No.009213992, registered on December 13, 2010;\r\n\r\n- The EU trademark registration (figurative) No.013225065, registered on February 26, 2015;\r\n\r\n- The EU trademark registration “HUAWEI MATE” (word) No. 013652375, registered on July 1, 2015.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also refers to its official website www.huawei.com. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SHOP-HUAWEI.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}