WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Calvin Klein Inc. v. Wang Yanchao

Case No. D2014-1413

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Calvin Klein Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America, represented by Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP, Canada.

The Respondent is Wang Yanchao of Qingdao, Shandong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <calvinklein.wang> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 18, 2014. On August 18, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 25, 2014 and an amended Complaint on August 26, 2014.

On August 21, 2014, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 27, 2014, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of proceedings by email to the Center. On August 29, 2014, the Center received an email from the Respondent in Chinese stating that the Complainant is unreasonable but with no comments on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint/amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced September 1, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response September 21, 2014. The Response was filed with the Center September 19, 2014.

On September 29 and October 3, 2014, the Center received supplemental filings from the Complainant.

The Center appointed Susanna H.S. Leong, Hugues G. Richard and Dr. Hong Xue as panelists in this matter on October 13, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is in the business of the production, sale and licensing of men's and women's apparel, fragrances, accessories, and footwear, among other things. Since its formation, the Complainant has used and registered several of its marks in the United States and throughout the world. Specifically in the United States, the Complainant has used its CALVIN KLEIN trademark since as early as 1968. The Complainant's registrations were secured many years before the Respondent registered its disputed domain name in July, 2014.

The Complainant also owns a number of domain name registrations which wholly incorporate Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks, including: (1) <calvinklein.com>, (2) <calvinkleinbags.com>, (3) <calvinkleinunderwear.com>, and (4) <calvinkleinfashion.com>. Since their registration, the Complainant has used and continues to use these domain names in connection with its various websites, which provide information about the Complainant and its products and services as well as offer its products for sale. The Complainant's referenced domain names have been registered and in use since long before the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names in July, 2014.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 28, 2014 by the Respondent.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

First, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks based on the following reasons:

1. The trademark on which this Complaint is based is CALVIN KLEIN.

2. The Complainant's numerous federal trademark registrations and widespread use, advertising, and promotion of the CALVIN KLEIN marks since 1968 sufficiently establish rights in the mark pursuant to the Policy.

3. The disputed domain name <calvinklein.wang> incorporates the Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN trademark in its entirety.

4. The generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".wang" is not taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the previous marks and the disputed domain name. Furthermore, "WANG" is a transliteration of the word, "网", a Mandarin character meaning "website" or "portal".

Second, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the following grounds:

1. The Complainant's first use and first registration of its CALVIN KLEIN mark predate any use that the Respondent may have made of <calvinklein.wang> as a trade name, domain name, mark, or common name. The Respondent's disputed domain name was registered in 2014, more than thirty years after the Complainant first used its marks.

2. The Complainant registered the domain names and began operating its websites at <calvinklein.com>, <calvinkleinfashion.com>, and others, several years before Respondent registered the disputed domain name in dispute in this case.

3. The Respondent was aware of Complainant's domain names and web sites associated with the same before it registered the disputed domain name because Complainant's sites were operational, and thus easily accessible to Respondent, at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Because of the Complainant's federal registrations and that its use predates the Respondent's domain name registration, and because the Respondent is charged with constructive knowledge of Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN trademark registrations, Respondent has no proprietary rights, or legitimate interests, in the disputed domain names.

4. The Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks are well-known and famous and have been for many years. Respondent's registration of a domain name wholly incorporating a famous mark is not supported by legitimate interests.

5. The Respondent also has no rights or legitimate interests in "Calvin Klein" because the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Having just been registered in July 2014, the disputed domain name is not active. The disputed domain name therefore diverts Internet users seeking the Complainant's website to the Respondent's website, and as such does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

6. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in "Calvin Klein" or the disputed domain name <calvinklein.wang > because Respondent is not commonly known by that name. In this case, the publicly available WhoIs information identifies the Respondent as "wang yanchao", demonstrating that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Calvin Klein."

7. The Complainant also has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use or register a domain name which incorporates Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks.

Third, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the following grounds:

8. The Respondent is diverting the Complainant's customers or potential customers seeking information about the Complainant away from its web site (and to the Respondent's disputed domain name which is not yet active).

9. The disputed domain name was registered primarily to disrupt the Complainant's business. The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant and registered the disputed domain solely to cause harm to the Complainant.

10. The Complainant submits that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent's disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's disputed domain name satisfies Policy 4(b)(iv).

B. Respondent

The Respondent's Response may be summarized as follows:

1. Zodiac Registry Limited (黄道科) has successfully obtained the right to operate a domain name registry business from ICANN and is responsible for all the domain names to be registered in the ".wang" gTLD.

2. Under the registration rules of Zodiac Registry Limited, registration of domain names ending with the ".wang" gTLD is divided into three different phases:

(a) Sunrise Period: a priority registration period for eligible Trademark Holders;

(b) Landrush Period: the first opportunity for eager applicants to participate and grab unallocated premium domain names. Multiple applications for the same name will be resorted to auction. During this period, many "high-valued" domain names ending with ".wang" gTLD are open for registration.

(c) Open Registration: domain names under the ".wang" gTLD are open to general registration.

3. A trademark holder who has failed to register the domain name during the "sunrise period" is to be considered to have given up the opportunity to register the said domain name.

4. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <calvinklein.wang> after the Sunrise period and therefore has the right to use the disputed domain name which he has registered through lawful means. No other individuals or corporations may interfere with his right to use the registered disputed domain name.

5. The Respondent maintained that he is a legitimate Chinese user who has complied with international rules and regulations on the registration and use of domain names and is thus protected by law.

C. Complainant's Supplemental Filing

The Complainant filed a Supplemental filing which may be summarized as follows:

1. Default

The Response from the Respondent was not drafted in accordance with the UDRP Rules, as follows:

a. The Respondent did not provide his full name, postal and e-mail addresses, and the telephone and telefax numbers (UDRP Rule 5(b)(ii));

b. The Respondent did not provide his preferred method for communication (UDRP Rule 5(b)(iii));

c. The Respondent did not conclude with the following statement followed by his signature: "Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument." (UDRP Rule 5(b)(viii).

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 14(b), and because the Respondent has not complied with the UDRP Rules, and in instances where there are facts in dispute, the Panel ought to draw a negative inference surrounding the Respondent's submissions.

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The response from the Respondent essentially argues that the Complainant failed to submit the CALVIN KLEIN trademark into the Clearinghouse therefore the Complainant ought not to succeed.

However:

a) Under ICANN rules on the purpose of the Clearinghouse, it is explicitly stated at paragraph 1.6 that: "Failure to submit trademarks into the Clearinghouse should not be perceived to be lack of vigilance by trademark holders or a waiver of any rights, nor can any negative influence be drawn from such failure."

b) The Respondent states at paragraph 4 that the Complainant gave up the "opportunity" – likely referring to the Complainant's failure to register the disputed domain name itself, however this argument also fails because it would be impossible to expect trademark owners to register every domain name for every trademark owned for every variant and in every top level domain. This holds true especially given the release of new gTLDs. Further, the Respondent has not provided any evidence regarding any circumstances giving rise to his alleged legitimate interests in registering the disputed domain name.

c) The Respondent states at paragraph 3 that "many of the high-value domain names" are released following the sunrise period. The Respondent did not provide any information whatsoever regarding the reason he selected a domain name reproducing the trademark CALVIN KLEIN in its entirety. The Complainant respectfully requests that the Panel infer that the disputed domain name was registered due to the popularity of its trademark, and to sell the "high-value" domain name back to the Complainant.

d) The Respondent did not provide any information about the reasons for registering a domain name using the Complainant's trademark or any information whatsoever about the use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant respectfully requests that the Panel infer that it solely registered this domain name to prevent the Complainant from registering its trademark and disrupt the Complainant's business. The Complainant has provided information about the popularity of the ".wang" domain names and anyone seeking the Complainant's business will associate the use of the disputed domain name with the Complainant. If the site is inactive, then this will have a negative effect on the Complainant's business, because Internet users will have to go elsewhere to locate information on the Complainant's business or will possibly stop looking for the Complainant's business online thus disrupting the Complainant's business. Further, and without limitation, the Complainant is unable to control the use of its trademark online (or control use of the disputed domain name) by allowing this Respondent to own a domain name which reproduces the trademark in its entirety.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

According to the information received by the Center from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented in the case file, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English. Complying with the instructions from the Center, the Complainant has submitted a request that the proceeding should be in English. The Complainant has also provided a copy of the Complaint in the Chinese language to the Center for onward transmission to the Respondent.

After considering the circumstances of the present case and the submission of the Complainant's request, the Panel is of the opinion that the language of the present proceeding shall be English and the decision will be rendered in English. The Panel based its decision on the following reasons:

(i) The Panel's discretion under the Policy

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides:

"Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding."

Thus, the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of an agreement, the language of the registration agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel's discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.

(ii) The circumstances of this proceeding

One important consideration is the issue of fairness to both parties in their abilities to prepare the necessary documents for this proceeding and also to respond adequately to these documents when they are served upon the parties.

In particular, the Panel notes that the material facts of this proceeding are generated in the English language. In particular, the Panel notes that (a) the disputed domain name is made up of letters in Ascii-Script and could be pronounced phonetically in English; (b) the Center has notified the Respondent of the proceeding in both Chinese and English; (c) The Complainant has also provided a copy of the Complaint in the Chinese language to the Center for onward transmission to the Respondent. The Respondent submitted a Response in Chinese but did not expressly object the Complainant's request that English be the language of the proceedings.

Therefore the Panel is of the view that the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for this case.

In considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding shall be English and the decision will be rendered in English.

6.2. Admissibility of the Response and the Complainant's Supplemental Filing

The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent filed by the Respondent does not comply with the relevant requirements specified in the Rules in this regard. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness and in order to able to rely on a more complete record, the Panel has decided to admit the Response (in Chinese) from the Respondent and the portion of the Complainant's Supplemental Filing that deals with such Response in the deliberation of its decision.

6.3. Substantive Elements of the Policy

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must establish that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy clearly states that the burden of proof lies with the Complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied in this proceeding.

Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under the Rules of any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it deems appropriate.

On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights and continues to have such rights in the CALVIN KLEIN marks in connection with men's and women's apparel, fragrances, accessories, and footwear products in many countries in the world. The Panel finds that the Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks is well-known in connection with men's and women's apparel, fragrances, accessories, and footwear products offered by the Complainant in many countries.

In assessing the degree of similarity between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name, the Panel shall have regard to the degree of visual, aural or conceptual similarity between them and where appropriate, evaluate the importance to be attached to these different elements. The issue of degree of similarity between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name is to be considered from the perspective of the average consumer of the goods or services concerned in this case, and the average consumer is the Internet users seeking to purchase or seek information about the Complainant's products.

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN trademark in its entirety with the addition of the gTLD suffix ".wang". The Panel is of the view that the most prominent and distinctive part of the disputed domain name is the word "calvinklein" which for all intents and purpose is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark CALVIN KLEIN. Furthermore, it is also an accepted principle that the addition of suffixes such as ".wang" being the gTLD is not typically a distinguishing factor.

Given the wide spread notoriety and fame of the Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks, the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CALVIN KLEIN marks in which the Complainant has rights.

The Panel finds for the Complainant on the first part of the test.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the following reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

1. The Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the term "calvinklein" in its business operations;

2. There was no evidence to show that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the CALVIN KLEIN marks;

3. There is no indication whatsoever that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and/or is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

4. The disputed domain name is currently inactive and there is no evidence that it has been or will be put to use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

5. The Complainant and its CALVIN KLEIN marks enjoy a widespread reputation and high degree of recognition as a result of its fame and notoriety in connection with men's and women's apparel, fragrances, accessories, and footwear products and is a registered trademark in many countries all over the world. Consequently, in the absence of contrary evidence from the Respondent, the CALVIN KLEIN marks is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with the Complainant.

The Panel notes the overall burden of proof on this element rests with the Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant's contentions. (See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2). Based on the above reasons, the Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden of production to the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

"(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."

It should be noted that the mere registration of a domain name does not establish that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in said domain name. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name was available for registration when the Respondent registered it does not confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent has not discharged the burden of adducing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds for the Complainant on the second part of the test.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:

(i) circumstances indicating that a respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to a complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.

The above circumstances are indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith but they are by no means exhaustive. Evidence of other circumstances adduced before the Panel can also constitute registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith by a respondent in appropriate cases.

One important consideration in the Panel's assessment of whether the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith is prior knowledge on the part of the Respondent of the Complainant's rights in the trademark concerned. In this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trademarks often transcend national borders. Taking into account the worldwide reputation of the Complainant and its CALVIN KLEIN marks, as well as the market presence of the Complainant in numerous countries including China, the Panel finds that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent would not have had actual notice of the Complainant's trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Complainant has established a substantial presence on the Internet. The Complainant owns a number of domain name registrations which wholly incorporate Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks, including: (1) <calvinklein.com>, (2) <calvinkleinbags.com>, (3) <calvinkleinunderwear.com>, and (4) <calvinkleinfashion.com>. Since their registration, the Complainant has used and continues to use these domain names in connection with its various websites, which provide information about Complainant and its products and services as well as offer its products for sale. A simple search on the Internet would reveal the presence of the Complainant's trademark and domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that it is not conceivable that the Respondent would not have had actual notice of the Complainant's trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Consequently, it would have been pertinent for the Respondent to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain name, failing which the Panel draws the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant and its products. However, the Respondent has not provided any plausible explanations in his choice of the disputed domain name <calvinklein.wang>

Where the Respondent has chosen to register a disputed domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and where the trademark in question has through substantial use acquired worldwide fame, reputation and notoriety, a reasonable conclusion is that the trademark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with the Complainant. Thus, the burden on the Respondent to show that the choice of the disputed domain name was made legitimately and in good faith for the genuine offering of goods or services on the Internet is a very heavy one. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or intends to use the disputed domain name for purposes of bona fide offering of goods and services over the Internet. It should be noted again that the mere registration of a domain name does not establish that the Respondent registrant has rights or legitimate interests in the said domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent therefore does not have the right or legitimate interest to use CALVIN KLEIN marks in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the evidence adduced by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business or for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to a complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name or to attract Internet users to the Respondent's disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's domain name. The following are relevant and pertinent factors:

a. The widespread fame of the Complainant's CALVIN KLEIN marks and a lack of plausible explanation for the choice of incorporating the Complainant's well-known trademark in the entirety in the disputed domain name;

b. The fact that the disputed domain name is currently inactive with no evidence that it is, or will be, put to use for the purposes of bona fide offering of goods and services over the Internet is indicative of bad faith registration and use in the present case.

c. The fact that the Respondent has not adduced any evidence to show that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

It is well established that the passive holding of a domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.2.

In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

Thus, the Panel finds for the Complainant on the third part of the test.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <calvinklein.wang> be transferred to the Complainant.

Susanna H.S. Leong
Presiding Panelist

Hugues G. Richard
Panelist

Dr. Hong Xue
Panelist
Date: October 27, 2014