The Complainant alleges that since launching the CORELLE brand in 1970, it has built a significant reputation and has built up a vast amount of goodwill in the CORELLE trade marks in the UK and abroad, including China in relation to dinnerware goods and related services. It further alleges that the CORELLE brand has extensive reach offering its products and services worldwide. In 2019, Corelle Brands LLC merged with Instant Brands Inc, creating a company with an enterprise value over $2 billion. The Complainant has an active online presence including owning the domain name <corelle.com> which is used for the main operating website at (https:\/\/www.corelle.com\/) (“Official Website”), with the website being live since at least as early as November 9, 2000. The Complainant also alleges that it is active on social media and has generated a significant level of endorsement from consumers.<\/p>\n
PRELIMINARY ISSUES <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant requests consolidation of <corelle-Brand.com>, <corelle-collection.com>, and <corelleonline.com> (the “Disputed Domain Names”). It asserts that all the disputed domain names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert. According to the provisions of paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel has the power to decide the consolidation of multiple domain names disputes. Further, 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. The Complainant requests consolidation of all the disputed domain names into this single case. <\/p>\n The consensus view of consolidation is addressed in WIPO Overview 3.0, at paragraph 4,11.2. Specifically, “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.“ <\/p>\n Thus, while consolidation would be efficient in this case the question is whether it complies with the conditions set forth in the Policy and Rules. The Whois directory readouts which the Complainant attaches to its complaint reflects that there are three separate registrations by different registrants located in different postal zones. On first glance, this would undercut the request for consolidation, but the Complainant answers this question of consolidating being “fair and equitable to all parties“ by showing that: <\/p>\n The Panel attempted to access the websites of the Disputed Domain Names without success to two of them and the other, <corelleonline.com> offered products that may or may not be counterfeit goods although one of the items most likely is, but whether this is so and regardless whether the goods are counterfeit, the websites impersonate the Complainant by inviting Internet searches to purchase those goods in the belief they are purchasing genuine products. The Complainant’s Annex 4 is a picture of the landing page for <corelle-brand.com> in which the Complainant identifies counterfeit products.<\/p>\n The evidence of record although sketchy as to the look and feel of the infringing websites allows the Panel to infer that more likely than not there is a common beneficial owner of the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the Complainant’s application is granted and the Disputed Domain Names shall be consolidated into this single case. The Disputed Domain Names having been consolidated the next question is in what language should the proceedings be conducted? <\/p>\n - The Disputed Domain Names are all formed by words in the Latin script and not in Chinese characters;<\/p>\n - All of the Disputed Domain Names include the English-language trademark(s);<\/p>\n - All of the Disputed Domain Names are in the international .com zone. The Respondent uses English on the Disputed Domain Names, demonstrating that Respondent is familiar with the English language;<\/p>\n - The WHOIS data mentions: “Registrar URL: http:\/\/www.alibabacloud.com, meaning that Respondent used the Registrar’s English language website to register the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the registrar, Alibaba Singapore, uses an English language domain name registration agreement (https:\/\/www.alibabacloud.com\/). The Panel concures with Complainant. Respondents are catering to an English language audience and as such must be considered as having fluency in English. Accordingly, for the reasons Complainant states as well as the Panel's conclusion that the content of the websites to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve and Respondents‘ evident purpose of trafficking Complainant's mark by pretending to be Complainant is a clear violation of the Policy. <\/p>\n On these grounds, Complainant argues that “it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent must have a good grasp of the English language such that he would be able to understand the language of the Complaint.” The Panel agrees that for the reasons set forth above it is not unfair that the proceedings be conducted in English. See PaySendGroup Limited v Quan Zhongjun, Quan Zhong Jun Case No. CAC-UDRP-104808. <\/p>\n For the reasons set forth above, the proceeding shall be in conducted in English. <\/span><\/p>",
"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.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to active websites having the appearance of being Complainant’s website and offering or appearing to offer Complainant’s products. In view of its world-wide reputation and the fact that it has a market presence in China and China trademarks, the Respondents could not ignore the existence of the trademark CORELLE. <\/p>\n The Complainant alleges further that it has no business relationship with the Respondents and their registrations of the Disputed Domain Names are unauthorized, being merely intentional attempts to gain profit from the sales of goods, which it does by pretending to be the Complainant. And through this impersonation it is offering unsuspecting consumers counterfeit products bearing the Complainant’s trademarks. By so doing it is illegitimately trading on the Complainant’s fame for commercial gain. RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n The Respondents have not appeared formally or informally to controvert the evidence submitted by the Complaint.<\/p>",
"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).<\/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 Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Gerald Levine Ph.D, Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, Instant Brands Inc. claims ownership rights to various trademark registrations in the United Kingdom, Canada, and China. The trademark issued through the Canada trademark office, Registration No. TMA167153 issued January 2, 1970 reflects the Complainant as the current owner of CORELLE, by transfer from Corelle Brands, Inc. The UK trademark reflects Corelle Brands, Inc. as the mark owner. The Complainant explains this discrepancy in the Amended Complaint that Corelle Brands, Inc. and Instant Brands Inc. merged in 2019, which is corroborated in the Canada trademark filing.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"Corelle-Brand.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"corelle-collection.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"corelleonline.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
<\/ol>\n
<\/p>\n\n
<\/span>Requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into another language would create an undue burden and delay. Respondent has not brought forward any arguments that using the English language in this proceeding would not be fair and efficient.
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n