The Respondents are from the same city in China.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nSection 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states as follows:<\/p>\n
“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
Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) …, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language\/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue … .”<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names in this case all share similar naming patterns, i.e. the mark ASSOS in combination with descriptive suffixes or prefixes, which relate to the nature of the business (bikes) or the target consumer market (EU), and the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.shop” or “.com”. The other significant indicator of common control is the identical\/closely similar layout of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved, and the other points made by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Panel considers that a consolidation is <\/span>fair and equitable in this case and procedural efficiency would be achieved. The Respondents have not indicated that they would suffer any prejudice from consolidation, nor contested the request for consolidation. No potential prejudice is apparent to the Panel. <\/span><\/p>\nB. Language of the Proceeding<\/p>\n
The language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names is Chinese. Pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules“), paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.<\/p>\n
The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceedings be English for these reasons:<\/p>\n
\n- The disputed domain names all contain Latin characters, including words such as “store”, “sale”, and “bike”;<\/li>\n
- English is the primary language for business and international relations; and<\/li>\n
- Requiring a translation of the Complaint into Chinese would cause additional expense and delay.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.<\/p>\n
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the language\/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, and evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5.1).<\/p>\n
Having taken into account the circumstances of this case including the series and composition of the disputed domain names which all contain additional English terms - whether they be “sale”, “eustore”, “bikestore”, “stores”, “bikeonline”, “bike”, or “store-“ – and the gTLDs are “.shop” and “.com”, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English. The Panel does not find any reason which justifies delaying the proceeding and for the Complainant to incur additional expense in having the Complaint translated.<\/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": [
"Francine Tan"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-17 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations for ASSOS and ASSOS-formative marks, including the following:<\/p>\n
\n- International Trademark Registration No. 1435146, registered on July 10, 2018;<\/li>\n
- International Trademark Registration No. 872524, registered on November 14, 2005;<\/li>\n
- International Trademark Registration No. 771327, registered on November 23, 2001; and<\/li>\n
- International Trademark Registration No. 1058579, registered on July 21, 2010.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
These International registrations designations include China where the Respondents are located.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"assos-eustore.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"assos-bikestore.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"assos-stores.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"assos-bikeonline.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"assosbike.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"store-assos.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"eu-assosstore.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"assosstores.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"assossale.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}