About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Seintec Norte, S.L. v. yu Liu, wangluochuanmei

Case No. D2021-1815

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Seintec Norte, S.L., Spain, represented by UBILIBET, Spain.

The Respondent is yu Liu, wangluochuanmei, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <stinser.com> is registered with Domainname Blvd, INC. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2021. On June 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 2021, 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.

On June 18, 2021, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the administrative proceeding. On June 18, 2021, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the administrative proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the administrative proceeding.

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 the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2021.

The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on July 26, 2021. 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

The Complainant is headquartered in Spain and is a company active in the metallurgy industry. The Complainant specifically supplies flat product steel materials to other companies using strip metals as a raw material in their production processes. Moreover, the Complainant also manufactures basic iron, steel and ferro-alloy products.

The Complainant provides evidence that it owns a Spanish figurative trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES (see below):

logo , registration number M4001777, registered on August 26, 2019.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 6, 2021, and is therefore of a later date than the abovementioned trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active webpage containing gambling and pornographic material and links.

The Complainant also provides evidence that it attempted to settle this matter amicably, through a cease-and-desist letter dated May 5, 2021, to which it received no response from the Respondent.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s webpage containing gambling and pornographic material.

The Complainant contends that it originally registered the disputed domain name in 2009 and used it continuously for almost 12 years to link it to a website showcasing the Complainant’s goods and services. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was then allowed to lapse through an error of the administrator of the bankruptcy procedure that the Complainant was in at the time, and that it was then registered in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of trademark-abusive registrations of domain names, and provides reverse WhoIs results showing a list of 7,843 domain names registered by the Respondent. The Complainant finally also provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active webpage containing gambling and pornographic content. The Complainant essentially contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and constitutes registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to its trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Administrative Proceeding

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.

The Complainant stated in its Complaint that the language of the Registration Agreement is unknown and likely to be Chinese, but requested that the language of the administrative proceeding be English. On June 18, 2021, the Center notified the Parties that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant confirmed on that same day, June 18, 2021, its previous request that English be the language of the administrative proceeding, while the Respondent did not comment on the language of the administrative proceeding and did not submit any arguments on the merits.

The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the administrative proceeding be English; the fact that the Respondent did not comment on the language of the administrative proceeding and did not submit arguments on the merits (the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity, and was duly invited by the Center to provide a Response in either English or Chinese); the fact that the disputed domain name itself is in Latin characters, in English (with STINSER standing for “Steel Integral Services”) and that the Complainant provides evidence that the Respondent has registered a large number of domain names that are also in English, from which the Panel deducts that the Respondent understands, and is able to communicate in English; and, finally, the fact that Chinese as the language of the administrative proceeding could lead to unwarranted costs for the Complainant and delays for the administrative proceeding. In view of all these elements, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request that the language of the administrative proceeding be English.

6.2. Discussion and Findings on the Merits

The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements:

(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.

Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES, based on its use and registration of the same as a trademark.

Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in the Panel’s view, the dominant part of the Complainant’s registered trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES is “stinser”, and the disputed domain name only consists of “stinser” in its entirety followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), namely “.com” in this case. The Panel finds that the gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and may as such be disregarded by the Panel (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.1). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

On the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant makes out a prima facie case that the Respondent is not, and has never been, an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor of the Complainant, is not a bona fide provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name and is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). However, no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply.

Moreover, upon review of the facts and evidence, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directs to an active webpage containing gambling and pornographic content and links. In the Panel’s view, no rights or legitimate interests derive from using another’s trademark to divert Internet users to a pornographic and gambling website, see in this regard also several prior UDRP decisions such as Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Protection of Private Person / Aleksandr Katkov, WIPO Case No. D2017-0381; L’Oréal v. Robert Caceres, Dollarviews, WIPO Case No. D2015-1200; Neste Oil Oyj v. Nesin Dmitry / Privacy Protection Service INC, WIPO Case No. D2014-0883 and Averitt Express, Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Roman Emec, WIPO Case No. D2018-0249.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel considers that none of the circumstances of rights or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES, is clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers to the website linked to the disputed domain name, which contains gambling and pornographic content and links. The Panel also considers that the Respondent has clearly intentionally and opportunistically squatted the disputed domain name and targeted the Complainant’s trademark for STINSER STEEL INTEGRAL SERVICES. In this regard, the Panel refers to the Complainant’s evidence (e.g.,the submission of historic WhoIs records and screenshots of the former layout of the website linked to the disputed domain name in the years 2018 and 2019, as crawled by the Internet Archive’s WayBack Machine) from which it is clear that the Complainant originally registered the disputed domain name on October 16, 2009 and used the disputed domain name for over 10 years to link it to a website showcasing the Complainant’s goods and services, and that when the disputed domain name was allowed to lapse by an error of the administrator of the bankruptcy procedure that the Complainant was in at the time, the Respondent took advantage of this oversight to register the disputed domain name in bad faith. In the Panel’s view, the preceding elements clearly indicate the bad faith of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name, and the Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the website linked to the disputed domain name displays gambling and pornographic content and links, which shows that the Respondent is abusing the Complainant’s trademark to mislead and divert consumers for commercial gain to its website containing gambling and pornographic content and links and thereby also tarnishes the Complainant’s marks, see in this regard also previous UDRP decisions such as Red Bull GmbH v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / esco escortlar, escort sitesi, WIPO Case No. D2017-1639; Bank of Jerusalem Ltd. v. Shek Cheung Chung, WIPO Case No. D2017-1153 and Averitt Express, Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Roman Emec, WIPO Case No. D2018-0249. Moreover, the Panel has reviewed the evidence regarding reverse WhoIs search results listing the domain names registered by the Respondent, from which it appears that the Respondent registered no less than 7,843 domain names, including some which clearly contain famous third party trademarks. The Panel deducts from this evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of trademark-abusive domain name registrations. On the basis of the foregoing elements, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under the Policy.

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 <stinser.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: August 9, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/