{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104796", "time_of_filling": "2022-09-19 10:13:42", "domain_names": [ "paysedn.com", "pyasend.com", "ppaysend.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "PaySend Group Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Igor Motsnyi (Motsnyi Consulting (dba Motsnyi Legal))", "respondent": [ "Quan Zhongjun" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, (hereinafter “Complainant” or “Paysend”) is a global FinTech company on a mission to change how money is moved around the world. Paysend was created with a vision to change the way people manage their everyday finances. Paysend started out as a team of experts from banking and payments who became frustrated by slow and complex traditional banking systems. Paysend was the first FinTech project to introduce international card-to-card transfers, allowing connections between 12 billion cards globally - Mastercard, Visa, China UnionPay and local card schemes. \r\n\r\nSince the Complainant’s business started in 2017 it has launched a number of products, including “Paysend Global Transfers”, “Paysend Global Account”, “Paysend Link” and “Paysend Connect”. \r\n\r\nPaysend currently serves over 7 MILLION customers and 17,000 SME’s and operates in more than 150 countries globally, while the receiving countries are over 110, is one of the leaders in the area of online money transfers and received various awards including “PayTech 2018” – “Best Consumer Payments” and “FinovateSpring 2018”- Leading FinTech Product.\r\n\r\nFor more information about the Complainant, its “Paysend” business, products and services and awards via Complainant’s website www.paysend.com. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant and its business have been widely covered by various media.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has strong social media presence and had already strong social media presence before the registration date of all the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nFor more media coverage of the Complainant and its services also see the “Paysend and the media” section on the Complainant’s web site: https:\/\/paysend.com\/en-rs\/about. \r\n\r\nThe following media inter alia wrote about the Complainant and its “Paysend” business and trademarks: “Yahoo Finance”, “Techcrunch”, “UK Tech”, “Maximizing Money”, “Finextra”, “Fintech Futures”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns and operates various domain names (both gTLDS and ccTLDS) incorporating its “Paysend” trademark, most notably , , , .\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on March 11, 2022 and on March 14, 2022.", "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 names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 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": "1.\tRequest for Change of Languages: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the language of this administrative proceeding be English in respect of the two disputed domain names and , pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(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. Complainant makes this request in light of the potential Chinese language Registration Agreement of the disputed domain names mentioned above.\r\n\r\nParagraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers 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. UDRP panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios were summarized into WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 4.5.1. In this particular instance, the Complainant tried to request change of languages of proceedings in light of Chinese language Registration Agreement by showing that 1) The translation of the Complaint would unfairly disadvantage and burden the Complainant and delay the proceedings and adjudication of this matter; 2) all 5 disputed domain names were initially registered with one single registrar - \"Cosmotown, Inc.\" and the registration agreement for all 5 domains was in English; 3) in many previous UDRP decisions against the same Respondent UDRP panels accepted the English language as the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nIn light of the scenarios and equity, the Panel is of the view that conducting the proceeding in English is unlikely to heavily burden the Respondent, and it is likely that the Respondent can understand the English language based on a preponderance of evidence test. Without further objection from the Respondent on the issue, the Panel will proceed to issue the decision in English.\r\n\r\n\r\n2.\tConsolidation: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests consolidation of this Complaint against two Respondents: “Quan Zhongjun” and “Quan Zhong Jun”. Paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Pursuant to question 4.11.2 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions 3.0, “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.” \r\n\r\nIn this case, two Respondents are identified by the respective Registrars as \"Quan Zhongjun\" (registrant of 3 disputed domain names) and \"Quan Zhong Jun\" (registrant of 2 disputed domain names), and these Respondents have 2 different e-mail addresses and different contact info. Nonetheless, a range of factors can be used to determine of multiple responses are “subject to common control” and whether the consolidation would be “fair and equitable”. Applying to this particular case, these factors include but are not limited to: The disputed domain names were registered either on March 11, 2022 or March 14, 2022, the same dates within a short time period; The IP address for all the disputed domain names is the same; e-mail address of \"Quan Zhongjun\" disclosed by \"Cosmotown, Inc\" is also associated with \"Quan Zhong Jun\", etc.\r\n\r\nIn particular, as the Complainant brought to attention, when the Complainant sent a Cease-and-Desist letter to the abuse contact of the registrar “Cosmotown Inc.” in respect of all 5 domain names, it received a response from the same Registrar and the Registrar did not claim that some of the disputed domain names were not registered with \"Cosmotown Inc\". However, when the verification request was sent, it took the Registrar many additional days to respond. This delay is likely caused by the registrant-Respondent to transfer 2 of the disputed domain names to the other registrar - \"DNSPod, Inc\" and caused further delay in this proceeding.”\r\n\r\nTherefore, it appears from the totality of circumstances that all 5 disputed domain names seem to be subject to common control and the consolidation in this proceeding would be fair and equitable to both Parties.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Carrie Shang" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-11-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, (hereinafter “Complainant” or “Paysend”) is a global FinTech company on a mission to change how money is moved around the world. Paysend was created with a vision to change the way people manage their everyday finances. Paysend started out as a team of experts from banking and payments who became frustrated by slow and complex traditional banking systems. Paysend was the first FinTech project to introduce international card-to-card transfers, allowing connections between 12 billion cards globally - Mastercard, Visa, China UnionPay and local card schemes. \r\n\r\nSince the Complainant’s business started in 2017 it has launched a number of products, including “Paysend Global Transfers”, “Paysend Global Account”, “Paysend Link” and “Paysend Connect”. \r\n\r\nPaysend currently serves over 7 MILLION customers and 17,000 SME’s and operates in more than 150 countries globally, while the receiving countries are over 110, is one of the leaders in the area of online money transfers and received various awards including “PayTech 2018” – “Best Consumer Payments” and “FinovateSpring 2018”- Leading FinTech Product.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of inter alia the following trademarks incorporating the “Paysend” word element:\r\n\r\n-\t“PAYSEND” (word + device) international trademark No. 1284999, registration date – October 13, 2015, protected inter alia in the following jurisdictions: United States, United Kingdom, China (protected for services in class 36), Spain, Poland, Portugal, Germany, Benelux, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Italy, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Zambia, Zimbabwe, African Intellectual Property Organization, Singapore in respect of some goods in class 09 and some services in class 36 including “financial affairs; monetary affairs; online banking”; \r\n-\t“PAYSEND” (word), IR 1251936, registration date - April 10, 2015, subsequent designation in some jurisdictions on December 10, 2015, protected inter alia in the following jurisdictions: China, United States, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Benelux, Ireland, Hungary, Switzerland, Colombia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Greece, France, India, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Singapore, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Mexico, New Zealand, African Intellectual Property Organization in respect of some services in class 36, including “financial affairs; monetary affairs”;\r\n-\t “PAYSEND Money for the future” (word + device), IR 1539382, registration date – 30.05.2020, subsequent designation in some jurisdictions on December 16, 2021, protected inter alia in the following jurisdictions: United States, the UK, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Benelux, Canada, Spain, Indonesia, Iceland, Switzerland, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Japan, African Intellectual Property Organization (OA), the Philippines and protected for some goods in class 9 and services in class 36, including “financial affairs, including activity relating to the use of crypto- and digital money and crypto-currency; monetary affairs including operations with the use of crypto- and digital money and crypto-currency”.\r\n\r\n“Paysend” business, products and services and awards are publicized via Complainant’s website www.paysend.com. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not submitted any material identifying its rights in this instance case. \r\n", "decision_domains": { "PAYSEDN.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PAYYSEND.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PYASEND.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PPAYSEND.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PAYSENDD.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }