À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LeSportsac, Inc. v. Zhao Zhao

Case No. D2012-2505

1. The Parties

The Complainant is LeSportsac, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, United States of America, represented by Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Zhao Zhao of Shanghai, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lesportsacbrasil.com> is registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2012. On December 20, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 21, 2012, 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 December 21, 2012, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed on the same day its request that English be the language of the proceeding. No comments were received from the Respondent on this matter by the specified due date.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 7, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 27, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2013.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on February 7, 2013. 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.

Language of Proceedings

The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that:

“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.”

The Complainant requested the language of the proceedings be in English on the grounds that the Complainant is not familiar with the Chinese language, that the international language of business is English, and that the website under the disputed domain name is written almost entirely in Portuguese with some English words.

The Respondent has not responded to the proceedings nor to the request that the language of the proceeding to be English.

As this Panel held in Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, WIPO Case No. D2008-1191, a default by a respondent in responding to a request that the language of proceedings be in a language other than the registration should be a strong factor in allowing the proceedings to proceed in another language.

Given, also, the strong case the Complainant has on the merits, the Panel, therefore, determines that English shall be the language of the proceedings.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant has since 1974 promoted the trademark LE SPORTSAC as its principal trademark for bags of various types. It has annual sales under the brand of over USD 300 million.

The Complainant has registered the trademark LE SPORTSAC in numerous countries around the world, including in China and Brazil in International Class 18.

The disputed domain name <lesportsacbrasil.com> was registered on September 4, 2012. The site to which the disputed domain name resolves sells bags bearing the LE SPORTSAC trademarks. It is also selling bags with no LE SPORTSAC trademarks on them by reference to the trademark LE SPORTSAC. The Respondent is not a licensee or in anyway authorized by the Complainant to use the LE SPORTSAC trademark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <lesportsacbrasil.com> is made up of the registered trademark LE SPORTSAC to which the geographic term “Brasil” has been added. It is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the name “Le Sportsac” and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates.

In particular, the Complainant submits that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to is used to sell products that claim to be Le Sportsac products. The Respondent also claims to be a “direct manufacture[r]” and a brand owner that “can closely monitor the quality of all our products” and is seeking to mislead consumers.

Registered and used in bad faith

The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark LE SPORTSAC. The Complainant argues that the unauthorized sale of products by the Respondent on the website “www.lesportsacbrasil.com” and giving Internet users the impression of the website selling genuine products of the Complainant is clearly use of the disputed domain name in bad faith by seeking to divert customers to the site.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In this Panel’s view, this is a very simple case of clear domain name hijacking for the purposes of commercial gain which the UDRP was designed to stop.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar:

The disputed domain name <lesportsacbrasil.com> is made up of the registered trademark LE SPORTSAC and a geographical term. The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the registered trademark LE SPORTSAC.

The Panel finds the first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests:

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests.

The use made by the Respondent of the website under the disputed domain name <lesportsacbrasil.com> where the Complainant’s trademark features prominently makes it hard to imagine that the Respondent could ever establish any rights or legitimate interests.

None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.

The Panel finds the second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith:

For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name <lesportsacbrasil.com> was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.

This case clearly falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:

“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

The Panel finds that the third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

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 <lesportsacbrasil.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2013

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