WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ERREA’ SPORT S.p.A. v. Xinlian Gao

Case No. D2017-1435

1. The Parties

Complainant is ERREA’ SPORT S.p.A. of Torrile, Italy, represented by Crea Avvocati Associati, Italy.

Respondent is Xinlian Gao of Jinhua, Zhejiang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <errea.mobi> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2017. On July 25, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 26, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 31, 2017.

The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. 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

A. Complainant

Complainant, ERREA’ SPORT S.p.A. is a company incorporated in Torrile, Italy. Founded in 1988, Complainant is an Italian Company specialized in the production of technical-athletic apparel, and is one of the most important sport equipment manufacturers in the world.

Complainant has exclusive rights in the ERREA and ERREA SPORT marks (hereinafter ERREA marks). Complainant is the exclusive owner of more than two hundred ERREA trademarks worldwide, including the Italian trademark registered since June 16, 1994, the European Union trademark (registration number 7008477) registered on February 4, 2009 (Annex 7 to the Complaint), and International trademark registration (registration number 1046626) (which cover China) registered on January 28, 2010 (Annex 7 to the Complaint). Complainant also owns and operates more than 200 domain names, which contain ERREA mark in its entirety, such as <errea.cn> (Annex 8 to the Complaint).

B. Respondent

Respondent is Xinlian Gao, apparently an individual residing in Jinhua, Zhejiang, China. The disputed domain name <errea.mobi> was registered on December 16, 2016, currently resolving to a website reproducing a mobile phone interface.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <errea.mobi> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ERREA trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the core part of Complainant’s trademark ERREA, and completely composed by the expression, “errea” the main part of Complainant’s Company Name “Errea Sport”.

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name <errea.mobi> be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

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

(ii) 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.

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ERREA marks acquired through registration. The ERREA marks have been registered in the Italy since 1994 and as international trademark registration covering China since 2010.

The disputed domain name <errea.mobi> comprises the ERREA mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s trademarks by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.mobi” to the ERREA marks. This does not eliminate the identity between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name. In relation to the gTLD suffix, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) further states:

“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.” (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11).

Thus, the Panel finds that disregarding the gTLD suffix “.mobi”, the disputed domain name is identical to the ERREA marks.

The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

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

(ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademarks.

The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel 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 respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai, WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 and cases cited therein).

According to the Complaint, Complainant, founded in 1988, is an Italian company specialized in the production of technical-athletic apparel, and is one of the most important sport equipment manufacturers in the world. Complainant has rights in the ERREA marks since 1994 in Italy, and international trademark registration covering China since 2010, which precede Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (2016).

Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of ERREA-branded products or services. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifts the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).

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

(a) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the term “errea” in the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ERREA marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the ERREA mark and Respondent has, through the use of an identical domain name created a likelihood of confusion with the ERREA marks. Potential end users are led to believe that the Infringing Website at “www.errea.mobi” is either Complainant’s site or a site of an official authorized partner of Complainant, which it is not.

(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <errea.mobi> on December 16, 2016, long after the ERREA marks became internationally known. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s ERREA marks.

(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

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 disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:

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

(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

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

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

The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the ERREA marks with regard to its products and services. Complainant, founded in 1988, is one of the world leading companies in the production of technical-athletic apparel, and sport equipment. Complainant has rights in the ERREA marks in Italy 1994 and international registration covering China since 2010. It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have been aware of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (in 2016).

Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith” (see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787).

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

Complainant also has adduced evidence to show that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other online location”.

Given the widespread reputation of the ERREA marks and the identical domain name, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. In other words, Respondent has, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name, created a likelihood of confusion with the ERREA marks. Potential end users are led to believe that the Infringing Website “www.errea.mobi” is either Complainant’s site or a site of an official authorized partner of Complainant, which it is not. Moreover, Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all 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 <errea.mobi> be transferred to Complainant.

Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 12, 2017