{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106186", "time_of_filling": "2024-01-29 10:11:53", "domain_names": [ "lavazzaid.com", "lavazzaidn.com", "lavazzaldn.com", "lavazzain.com", "lavazzain.club", "lavazzain.vip" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Luigi Lavazza S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "jin ne (jinm niw wam)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant, Luigi Lavazza S.p.A., was founded in Turin, Italy, in 1895, and has become one of the global leading stakeholders in the field of coffee business.  The Complainant is the world's seventh-ranking coffee roaster, with operations (through affiliated companies and distributors) in more than 90 countries, and it has reported a turnover of EUR 2.24bn in 2019.<\/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 website at <www.lavazza.com> (registered in 1996).<\/p>\n

The Complainant seeks to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names on the grounds set out in section A.3 below.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore made no factual allegations.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain names <lavazzaid.com>; <lavazzaidn.com>; <lavazzaldn.com>; <lavazzain.com>; <lavazzain.club>; and <lavazzain.vip> (collectively, 'the disputed domain names').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.1 Preliminary Matter<\/strong>: Application for Consolidation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant has submitted an application for consolidation pre-emptively.<\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain names are subject to a common control or a single individual\/entity or, at least, by a group of individuals acting in concert, thereby making the consolidation of the proceedings equitable and procedurally efficient ('the Complainant's Application for Consolidation').<\/p>\n

The Complainant's Application for Consolidation is grounded on the following factors:<\/p>\n

i) the dispute domain names contain the same pattern, ie trade mark + generic suffix + extension;<\/p>\n

ii) the disputed domain names share the same registrar (Gname.com Pte. Ltd.);<\/p>\n

 iii) the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names contain identical layouts, except for <lavazzaaldn.com> which is inactive;<\/p>\n

iv) the disputed domain names share the same hosting provider (CloudFlare Inc.); and<\/p>\n

 v) the registrants of the disputed domain names are from the same country and\/or state\/province: as per the references to  'HK', 'CN' and 'Hong Kong' in the Whois.<\/p>\n

For the foregoing reasons, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain names and the named Respondents be consolidated into a single UDRP administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n

For present purposes, the registrants\/holders on record of the disputed domain names are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the Respondent'.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 Preliminary Matter<\/strong>: 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 agreements for the disputed domain names 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 names contain Latin characters and English words; (ii) the disputed domain names resolve to websites which display content in English; and (iii) it would be unfair to proceed in Chinese owing to the delay and costs associated with translations.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3 Substantive grounds<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.1 The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark to the extent that they reproduce the trade mark LAVAZZA in its entirety. The non-distinctive elements 'id', 'idn', 'ldn' and 'in', as well as the generic Top-Level Domains ('gTLDs'), in this case <.com>, <.vip> and <.club>,  have no bearing on the confusing similarity test.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain names resolve to login webpages which bear the Complainant's trade mark LAVAZZA, such that the Respondent's websites may well be used to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information from Internet users.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not licensee, authorised agent of the Complainant or in any other way authorised to use the Complainant's trade mark. Moreover, the Respondent is not an authorised reseller of the Complainant and has not been authorised to register or use the disputed domain names. In addition, there is no disclaimer as to the Respondent's lack of relationship with the Complainant on the Respondent's websites.<\/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

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the trade mark LAVAZZA long predates the registration of the disputed domain names, and that the Complainant's worldwide reputation as a leading coffee importer and roaster makes it reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Respondent's actual knowledge of the Complainant is furthermore demonstrated by the use of the Complainant's trade mark LAVAZZA on the Respondent's websites.<\/p>\n

Use<\/strong><\/p>\n

Under this UDRP Policy ground, the Complainant avers that the use of the disputed domain names (in particular the misappropriation of the Complainant's trade mark and the login webpages) evidences the Respondent's underlying intention to capitalise on the reputation of the LAVAZZA trade mark by diverting Internet users seeking LAVAZZA products to the Respondent's websites, for financial gain, by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the LAVAZZA trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsements of the Respondent's websites and\/or the goods offered or promoted through the Respondent's websites (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

Furthermore, he inactive status of the disputed domain name <lavazzaldn.com> would not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the UDRP Policy in accordance with the Telstra test and paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0').<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant informs that it has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent which remains unanswered, the consequence of which being that the Panel is also entitled to draw adverse inferences therefrom.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore failed to advance any substantive case on the merits.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

1<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Application for Consolidation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The registrar's verification response has confirmed that the disputed domain names are owned by the same Registrant\/Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant's Application for Consolidation has been superseded owing to the supervenient lack of cause of action.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'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 domain name string<\/strong>: the Panel considers that English words\/abbreviations are the only identifiable language in the string of each of the six disputed domain names;<\/p>\n

(ii) the content of the Respondent<\/strong>'s website<\/strong>: while the Respondent's websites are presently inactive, the Complainant has supplied evidence that the websites at the disputed domain names <lavazzain.com>, <lavazzain.club>, and <lavazzain.vip>  hosted content in English only. The Respondent would therefore appear to have knowledge of the English language;<\/p>\n

(iii) the language(s) of the Parties<\/strong>: the Complainant is incorporated in Italy and the Respondent appears to be an individual\/entity resident or incorporated in China. The English language would therefore be considered neutral for both Parties;<\/p>\n

(iv) the Respondent<\/strong>'s behaviour<\/strong>: the Panel notes that the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\n

(v) the Panel<\/strong>'s overall concern with due process<\/strong>: the Panel has discharged its duty under Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules; and<\/p>\n

(vi) the balance of convenience<\/strong>: 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 three of the Respondent's websites hosted 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

3<\/strong>. Miscellaneous<\/strong><\/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": "2024-02-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the holder of the following registered trade marks, amongst others:<\/p>\n

• International trade mark registration no. 450754, filed on 10 March 1980, for the figurative mark LAVAZZA, in class 21 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• International trade mark registration no. 644146, designating, inter alia, China, filed on 23 October 1995, for the figurative mark LAVAZZA, in class 42 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 000317057, filed 18 July 1996, for the word mark LAVAZZA, in classes 21, 30 and 42 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter, collectively or individually, 'the Complainant's trade mark', 'the Complainant's trade mark LAVAZZA, or '(LAVAZZA) the trade mark (LAVAZZA)' interchangeably).<\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:<\/p>\n

• <lavazzaid.com>: 10 October 2023<\/p>\n

• <lavazzaidn.com>: 10 December 2023<\/p>\n

• <lavazzaldn.com>: 10 December 2023<\/p>\n

• <lavazzain.com>: 16 December 2023<\/p>\n

• <lavazzain.club>: 16 December 2023<\/p>\n

• <lavazzain.vip>: 16 December 2023<\/p>\n

At the time of writing, the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites (for present purposes, 'the Respondent’s websites').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "lavazzaid.com": "TRANSFERRED", "lavazzaidn.com": "TRANSFERRED", "lavazzaldn.com": "TRANSFERRED", "lavazzain.com": "TRANSFERRED", "lavazzain.club": "TRANSFERRED", "lavazzain.vip": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }