{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104527",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-05-23 09:10:48",
    "domain_names": [
        "gnhearingaid.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "GN Store Nord A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "Ding Jian Bing"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, GN Store Nord A\/S, states that it was founded over 150 years ago and is one of the world’s leaders in intelligent audio solutions. The Complainant states that it is well-known for hearing aids, hearing protection devices, medical apparatus and instruments for use in relation to hearing. The Complainant’s solutions are marketed under the brands – ReSound, Beltone, Interton, Jabra and BlueParrott in 100 countries. In 2003, the Complainant introduced the first hearing aid with an open fitting under “Resound Air”. In 2016, Resound Air was selected as the best power hearing system and best mobile app by the United Kingdom Association for Independent Hearing Health Professionals. In the same year, the Complainant announced that the Danish parent company in the hearing aid group, GN ReSound A\/S, would change its name to GN Hearing A\/S and the Danish parent company in the headset group, GN Netcom A\/S, would change its name to GN Audio A\/S. In 2021, the Complainant marked its revenue as 15.8 billion, of which 43% came from Europe, 36% from North America and 21% from the rest of the world.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 3, 2018, which resolves to an active website offering competing goods for sale. \r\n",
    "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\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GN mark on the basis that the disputed domain name which consists of the GN mark which is the dominant feature of the disputed domain name, the addition of the descriptive terms “hearing” and “aid” and the generic top-level domain name suffix (“gTLD”) “.com” are insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GN mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant license or authorize the Respondent to use the GN mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s GN mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location.\r\n\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\nPreliminary Issue: Language of Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 11 of the Rules provides that:\r\n“(a) 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 language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:\r\n(i)\tthe Respondent sent an email to the Complainant on September 9, 2021, in the English language;\r\n(ii)\tthe disputed domain name is in the English language;\r\n(iii)\tthe content of the disputed domain name website is also in English, which shows that the Respondent’s target audience are English-speaking;\r\n(iv)\tthe disputed domain name’s gTLD “.com” is international;\r\n(v)\tthe disputed domain name is in the Latin script and not in Chinese;\r\n(vi)\tthe Respondent owns registrations of other domain names which also Latin script and not in Chinese; and\r\n(vii)\trequiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint would cause unnecessary delays.\r\nIn addition, the Panel notes that the Respondent also sent an email to the Center on July 1, 2022, in the English language.\r\nThe Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Panel cites the following with approval: “Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding.  In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding.  However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case.  The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs.  It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.”  (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006 0004).\r\n\r\nHaving considered the above factors, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel agrees that the Respondent appear to be familiar with the English language, taking into account the Respondent’s selection of the English-language trademark and the domain name in dispute. In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Jonathan Agmon"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-07-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks worldwide, including but not limited to the following:\r\n- Danish Trademark Registration No. VR 2005 04973 for “GN STORE NORD”, registered on December 7, 2005;\r\n- International Trademark Registration No. 1343620 for “GN” design, registered on November 7, 2016;\r\n- E.U. Trademark Registration No. 0887970 for “GN” design, registered on September 9, 2005; and\r\n- U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5435446 for “GN”, registered on April 3, 2018.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "GNHEARINGAID.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}