{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106663",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-07-08 09:27:34",
    "domain_names": [
        "VITTORIAUP.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Vittoria S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "jie zhu"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong>A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is an Italian bicycle tire manufacturer established in 1953. It has more than 1000 employees around the world and, with an annual production of over 7 million tires. It is among the largest operators in the sector. The Complainant&rsquo;s mission is to make the most advanced bicycle tires in the world.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant supplies 37 professional cycling teams all over the world and 4 National Cycling Federations. Moreover, it pursues its mission through the support of 16 ambassadors from anywhere. The Complainant produces and sells mainly road and mountain bike tires. Moreover, the Complainant&rsquo;s commercial offer includes also bicycle accessories. All these products are characterized by the trademarks &ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo; and &ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo; and they are advertised on the Complainant&rsquo;s website.<\/p>\n<p><strong>B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceedings and has consequently made no factual allegations.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is Jie ZHOU based at the address of DaZhongZhenXinTuanCun2Zu45Hao, Yancheng, Jiangsu, China.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2023 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar.<\/p>\n<p>As at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offers goods and\/or services that compete with the Complainant&rsquo;s own offerings.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><strong>A. COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>With respect to the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Complaint is written in English;<\/li>\n<li>According to the registrar's verification response ('the RVR'), the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese;<\/li>\n<li>Following the RVR, and at the request of CAC, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceedings, on the following grounds:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>First of all, the Complainant is an Italian company, while the Respondent is a Chinese citizen and the language of the registration agreement is Chinese.<\/p>\n<p>Given the above, the present Complaint was written in English, a third international language comprehensible to a wide range of Internet users worldwide, including the ones living in Italy and in China.<\/p>\n<p>Since the spirit of Paragraph 11 of the Rules seems to be to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full considerations to the parties&rsquo; level of comfort with each language, English seemed to be the fair language in the present proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, it is true that there is no evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English. However, it is not possible to ignore that the present dispute has been started because the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name which is identical to a well-known registered trademark legitimately owned and used by the Complainant in several countries, including China (using the same in connection with an English language website offering for sale bicycle tires and bicycle accessories, for whom the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks are registered and used, and reproducing the layout and colors of Complainant&rsquo;s official website).<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p><strong>I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name &ldquo;VITTORIAUP.COM&rdquo; is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks. It exactly reproduces the well-known trademark &ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo;, with the mere addition of the acronym &ldquo;UP&rdquo;, meaning something directed or moving towards a higher place or position.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to register or use the disputed domain name; ii) The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent; iii) The Respondent is not commonly known as &ldquo;VITTORIAUP&rdquo;; iv) The Respondent has not any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain name.<\/p>\n<p><strong>III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, because: i) The Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks &ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo; and &ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo; are distinctive and well known all around the world. The Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name; ii) If the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wording &ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo;, above all in relation to tires, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant and the Respondent would have knowledge of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks. It is highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Use<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is connected to a website offering for sale of bicycle tires and bicycle accessories, using the trademarks &ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo;and &ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo; and reproducing the layout and colors of Complainant&rsquo;s official website. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>B<\/strong>.&nbsp;<strong>RESPONDEENT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>The language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond on the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant&rsquo;s request.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel is given discretion under Paragraph 11 of the Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 10 of the Rules mentions that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Based on the following factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties to have the language of the proceedings be English:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of internet users worldwide, including the ones living in Italy and in China;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>T<\/span>he Respondent&rsquo;s website is an English language website, offering for sale of bicycle tires and bicycle accessories in English language;<\/li>\n<li>While determining the language of the administrative proceedings, 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 administrative proceedings &ndash; a widely spoken language &ndash; is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience. The determination of Chinese as the language of this administrative proceedings, 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 Rules (See <em>Burberry Limited v Fei Cheng<\/em>, CAC-UDRP-106643).<\/li>\n<li><span>The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond to reject the Complainant&rsquo;s request.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>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": [
        "Yunze Lian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks &ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo; and &ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo;:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>International trademark registration no. 479734 <\/span>&ldquo;VITTORIA&rdquo;, registered on October 19, 1983 and duly renewed in class 12;<\/li>\n<li><span>International trademark registration no. 1160114 <\/span>&ldquo;VITTORIA device&rdquo;, registered on March 14, 2013 and duly renewed in class 12, also covering China and USA;<\/li>\n<li><span>EU trademark registration no. 11541554 <\/span>&ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo;, registered on June 13, 2013 and duly renewed in class 12;<\/li>\n<li>EU trademark registration no. 018584162 &ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo;, registered on March 19, 2022 in class 12;<\/li>\n<li>EU trademark application no. 018726663 &ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo;, filed on June 30, 2022 in classes 9, 35 and 41, pending;<\/li>\n<li><span>USA trademark application no. 97498867 <\/span>&ldquo;VITTORIA &amp; device&rdquo;, filed on July 12, 2022 in classes 9, 35 and 41, pending.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names: &lt;VITTORIA.COM&gt;, &lt;VITTORIA.IT&gt;, &lt;VITTORIA.EU&gt;, &lt;VITTORIA.CN&gt;, &lt;VITTORIA.DE&gt;, &lt;VITTORIA.TIRES&gt;, &lt;VITTORIA.GREEN&gt;, &lt;VITTORIAUSA.COM&gt; and &lt;VITTORIA2GO.COM&gt;.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VITTORIAUP.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}