WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Royal Copenhagen A/S v. yuanxufufu

Case No. D2016-1700

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Royal Copenhagen A/S of Glostrup, Denmark, represented by Bech-Bruun, Denmark.

The Respondent is yuanxufufu of Bazhong, Sichuan, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <royalcopenhagen.xyz> 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 August 22, 2016. On August 22, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 23, 2016, 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.

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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 24, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was September 13, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2016.

The Center appointed Brigitte Joppich as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 2016. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a manufacturer of porcelain products, which was founded by the Danish Royal Family in Copenhagen in 1775. Today, the Complainant employs a total of 650 people located in Denmark, Japan, Thailand, and elsewhere, and offers its products through 12 stores in Denmark, Japan and Republic of Korea, as well as outlets and more than 117 shops-in-shops in Denmark, Japan, Republic of Korea, Taiwan Province of China, Germany, and the United States of America (“US”).

The Complainant is registered owner of numerous trademarks for ROYAL COPENHAGEN, inter alia, US trademark registration no. 1144568 ROYAL COPENHAGEN, registered on December 23, 1980; US trademark registration no. 1352873 ROYAL COPENHAGEN, registered on August 6, 1985; Australian trademark registration no. 1634706 ROYAL COPENHAGEN, registered on July 16, 2014; European trademark registration no. 000474163 ROYAL COPENHAGEN, registered on October 8, 1998; Japanese trademark registration no. 5538219 ROYAL COPENHAGEN, registered on November 22, 2012; and Chinese trademark registration no. 9303629 ROYAL COPENHAGEN, registered on February 14, 2014 (the “ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks”). The ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks have already been found to be a “well established trademark with a worldwide reputation” in a previous proceeding under the UDRP (cf. Royal Copenhagen A/S v. Private - EXP 2, WIPO Case No. D2012-0637). The Complainant maintains a website promoting its products at “www.royalcopenhagen.com”.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 28, 2016 and has been used in connection with a parking website featuring advertising links to different websites, including the Complainant’s website and websites offering competing products. In addition, the disputed domain name has been offered for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case.

(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks, which have a high degree of distinctiveness and are well known, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks, and as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” is in itself insufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks.

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, as the Complainant has not authorized the use of its company name and the ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks in any way, as there is no evidence that the Respondent owns any service marks or trademarks that reflect the disputed domain name, as the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Royal Copenhagen”, and as the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not in itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a bona fide offering of goods or services or from legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

(3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With regard to bad faith registration, the Complainant states that, based on the Complainant’s longstanding use of the ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks, the international brand awareness relating to such marks, and the fact that the advertising links available at the disputed domain name refer to the Complainant’s products, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks when registering the disputed domain name. With regard to bad faith use, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is likely to divert Internet traffic to the website available at the disputed domain name and deceive Internet users to believe the website is connected to the Complainant, and thereby potentially harms and tarnishes the Complainant’s reputation and the Complainant’s trademark. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a parking website featuring links to competing products constitutes bad faith use under the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; and

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s well established ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks and is identical to such marks.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Even though the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is the consensus view among UDRP panels that a complainant has to make only a prima facie case to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. As a result, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name will then shift to the respondent.

The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either. The Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a parking website featuring, inter alia, links to products competing with the Complainant’s ones. This does not constitute rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the ROYAL COPENHAGEN Marks as such marks have been used by the Complainant for more than two centuries and as the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with advertising links related to the Complainant’s products. Given that the term “Royal Copenhagen” itself makes no reference to the Complainant’s products, such use is, in all likelihood, no coincidence.

As to bad faith use, by using the disputed domain name in connection with a parking website the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain as set out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent is also using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of 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 <royalcopenhagen.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant.

Brigitte Joppich
Sole Panelist
Date: September 29, 2016