The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n
A. Background history<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant, Leatt Corporation, is a US (Nevada) corporation established in 2005 by Dr Chris Leatt.<\/p>\n The Complainant designs, develops and distributes protection equipment for motor sports and leisure activities worldwide. It offers a wide range of products, including helmets, body armor, knee braces, elbow guards, hydration systems and other cutting-edge products in the world of extreme sports.<\/p>\n The Complainant owns several brands across the globe, including LEATT, and reached a global revenue of c. USD 76m in 2022.<\/p>\n In addition to the trade marks mentioned in the above section 'Identification of Rights', and other trade marks in its portfolio, the Complainant operates its official customer website at <www.leatt.com> (registered in 2002), as well as its official corporate website at <www.leatt-corp.com> (registered in 2008).<\/p>\n The Complainant seeks to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name <bicycleleatt.com> on the grounds set out in section B.2 below.<\/p>\n B.1 Preliminary Matter: Language of the Proceeding<\/strong><\/p>\n With respect to the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes the following:<\/p>\n • The Complaint is written in English and the Complainant has made a pre-emptive request that English be the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\n • The registrar's verification response provided that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese; and<\/p>\n • The Complainant's grounds for English to be the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding can be summarised as follows: (i) the disputed domain name uses the Roman script and incorporates the terms 'bicycle' and 'leatt', which are words in the English language; (ii) the Respondent has opted for the most common generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) <.com> as opposed to a country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), for example <.cn>, where the Respondent is located; (iii) the disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays content in English; (iv) it would be unfair to proceed in Chinese owing to the delay and costs associated with translations; (v) the business language of the Complainant and its authorised representative is English, such that it would otherwise be burdensome to consider this UDRP administrative proceeding in Chinese; and (vi) it is established practice among UDRP panels to take Rule 10(b) and Rule 10(c) of the UDRP Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both Parties.<\/p>\n B.2 Substantive grounds<\/strong><\/p>\n I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <bicycleleatt.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, to the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces the trade mark LEATT in its entirety. The addition of the generic term 'bicycle' to the disputed domain name string does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's trade mark LEATT. On the contrary, the generic term 'bicycle' enhances the impression that the Respondent is somehow affiliated with the Complainant. <\/p>\n Furthermore, the gTLDs, in this case <.com>, are typically disregarded by UDRP panels under this Policy ground (see paragraph 1.11 the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0')).<\/p>\n II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. At the time of preparing the Complaint, the disputed domain name hosted an online shop with the infringing use of the Complainant's trade mark LEATT, purporting to sell a variety of goods, namely clothing, goggles, helmets, accessories, and shoes of the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant further avers that the products on the Respondent's website are offered disproportionally below market value, some of which at half or even a third of the Complainant’s prices. The Complainant argues that this is an indicium of counterfeit goods and that UDRP panels have held that the sale of counterfeit goods shall not confer rights on the Respondent or be considered a legitimate interest under paragraph 4 (c) of the UDRP Policy (see paragraph 2.13.1 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0).<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the Oki Data test is not applicable to this case, given the abusive sale of counterfeit goods, and that the Respondent is not a legitimate distributor or reseller. However, even if the Respondent were selling authentic products, the Complainant claims that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name would not satisfy any of the Oki Data requirements, namely:<\/p>\n • The Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue: the Respondent offers the goods at far below market prices, such that it can be inferred that the Respondent is selling counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s goods. Therefore, the Respondent is not offering the Complainant’s actual goods;<\/p>\n • The Respondent must use the site to sell only the trade marked goods or services: although the Respondent offers only the trade marked goods, they are offered at below market prices, which is evidence of counterfeit goods. Moreover, the Respondent's website contains an online form which appears to be an attempt to phish for customers' personal information. Hence, the Respondent is not using the Respondent’s website to sell only trade marked goods, but it is using it to steal users' sensitive information;<\/p>\n • The website must accurately and prominently disclose its relationship with a trade mark holder: the Respondent did not disclose or disclaim its total lack of relationship or connection to the Complainant anywhere on the Respondent's website; and<\/p>\n • The Respondent must not try to 'corner the market' in domain names that reflect the trade mark: the Respondent attempts to corner the market because the disputed domain name is composed of a common related and important term for the Complainant such as 'bicycle' and which is relevant to Complainant's segment of business, particularly as it sells clothing and accessories such as helmets and goggles for bicycle riders.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the Respondent apparently uses the disputed domain name to perpetrate a phishing scheme that cannot constitute rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP Policy. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent using it for legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n In view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.<\/p>\n III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the trade mark LEATT long predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name. The Complainant's active business presence worldwide makes it reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark.<\/p>\n Use <\/strong><\/p>\n Under this ground, the Complainant avers that the Respondent's purpose is to capitalise on the reputation of the LEATT trade mark by diverting Internet users seeking LEATT products to the Respondent's website, for financial gain, by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the LEATT trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsements of the Respondent's website and\/or the goods offered or promoted through the Respondent’s website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name will make consumers believe that the Respondent's website is an official website of LEATT.<\/p>\n The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <bicycleleatt.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " The Complainant's contentions are set out above.<\/p>\n The Respondent has failed to serve a Response within the deadline prescribed under Rule 5 of the UDRP Rules, or at all.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
"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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
"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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " <\/strong>A. Complainant's Language Request<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel is given discretion under Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules to determine the appropriate language of the UDRP administrative proceeding. 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.<\/p>\n With regard to 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:<\/p>\n (i) the language of the disputed domain name string: the Panel considers that English is the only identifiable language in the disputed domain name string;<\/p>\n (ii) the content of the Respondent’s website: the Respondent's website hosts content in English only, which suggests to the Panel that the Respondent has knowledge of the English language;<\/p>\n (iii) the language(s) of the Parties: the Complainant is incorporated in US and the Respondent appears to a Chinese national residing in China. Neither English nor Chinese would not be considered neutral for both Parties. Consequently, this factor is immaterial to the Panel's determination on this occasion; <\/p>\n (iv) the Respondent's behaviour: the Panel notes that the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\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<\/p>\n (vi) the balance of convenience: while determining the language of the UDRP administrative proceeding, 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 this UDRP administrative proceeding – a widely spoken language – is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience, not least given that the Respondent's website hosts content in English only. The determination of Chinese as the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding, 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.<\/p>\n In 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Yana Zhou"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, in respect of which the Complainant is the owner or sole licensee:<\/p>\n • Chinese trade mark registration no. 21157818, registered on 28 October 2017, for the word mark LEATT, in class 9 of the Nice Classification (held by Xceed Holdings CC);<\/p>\n • Chinese trade mark registration no. 51812992, registered on 14 July 2022, for the word mark LEATT (& logo), in class 25 of the Nice Classification (held by Xceed Holdings CC);<\/p>\n • US trade mark registration no. 3483646, registered on 12 August 2008, for the word mark LEATT, in class 9 of the Nice Classification (held by Xceed Holdings CC);<\/p>\n • EU trade mark registration no. 017952736, registered on 18 January 2019, for the word mark LEATT, in class 9 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n • Australian trade mark registration no. 1372902, registered on 16 July 2010, for the work mark LEATT, in classes 9, 10 and 28 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n The Complainant further relies on national trade marks worldwide which are held by the Complainant as owner or licensee.<\/p>\n (Hereinafter, collectively or individually, 'the Complainant's trade mark', 'the Complainant's trade mark LEATT', or 'the trade mark LEATT' interchangeably).<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered on 30 September 2022 and, at present, resolves to an online store on which LEATT products appear to be commercialised, the particulars of which are discussed further below ('the Respondent's website').<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bicycleleatt.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}