{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108497", "time_of_filling": "2026-03-23 09:54:51", "domain_names": [ "pateksea.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "PATEK PHILIPPE SA GENEVE" ], "complainant_representative": "Lucie PREVOST (Cabinet Vidon, Marques & Juridique PI)", "respondent": [ "zhang yu lian" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a Swiss watchmaking company, founded in 1839 by Antoine Norbert de Patek and Jean-Adrien Philippe. As one of the last independent, family-owned watch manufacturers in Geneva, the Complainant offers connoisseurs high-end watches and accessories around the world, maintaining to date over 300 retail locations globally and a dozen distributors in many countries of the world.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2020, and it does not resolve to any active website. MX Records are configured on the disputed domain name. <\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

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

In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PATEK trademark as this trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name in combination with the term \"SEA\" which is likely used in this context as an acronym for \"South East Asia\". Further, the Complainant contends that \".com\" gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded.<\/p>\n

Regarding the second UDRP element, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect of the disputed domain name. No authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Having in mind that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name for more than 5 years, there can be no legitimacy in respect to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

With respect to the third UDRP element, the Complainant holds that its PATEK trademark is well-known and that the Respondent knew or, at least, should have known about the Complainant's trademark rights. The incorporation of well-known trademark into a domain name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith. The configuration of the MX record on the disputed domain name further reinforces the use of bad faith, as it indicates that the disputed domain name may have been reserved for phishing purposes.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has provided a short response, simply negating that the requirements of the Policy have been met, without the provision of any additional arguments or evidence.<\/p>", "rights": "

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": "

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": "

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": "

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>\n

Preliminary issue – Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the language of the Registration Agreements is Chinese, as confirmed by the Registrar. The Complaint was submitted in English and the Respondent submitted its short Response in English as well. Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n

The Complainant requests that English be used as the language of the proceeding, arguing, inter alia, that translating the Complaint into Chinese would not put the Complainant in a position of equality towards the Respondent, and neither ensure the proceedings take place with due expedition, and that it is likely that the Respondent is in a position to understand English.<\/p>\n

The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of proceedings be English, the fact that Chinese as the language of proceedings could lead to unwarranted delay and costs for the Complainant and the fact that the Respondent provided its response in English language, from which the Panel deducts that the Respondent understands, and is able to communicate in English. In view of all these elements, the Panel determines that the language of proceedings shall be English.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Stefan Bojovic" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of rights in the trademark PATEK for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.<\/p>\n

\n

In particular, the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for PATEK including the following:<\/span><\/p>\n