Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0673
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:38:08+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Dukascopy Bank SA of Geneva, Switzerland, represented by Baker & McKenzie, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Liang Chen of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China.
The disputed domain name <dukascopyasia.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2011. On April 18, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 18, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and confirming that the language of the Registration Agreement that was used to register the disputed domain name is English.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2011. 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.
The Complainant, Dukascopy Bank SA is a Swiss company, founded in 2004, and is considered as one of the most successful Swiss Forex trading platforms. The Complainant employs more than 170 people.
Since its establishment in 2004, the Complainant has been using the DUKASCOPY mark in connection with its services.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark DUKASCOPY. For example: Swiss trademark registration No. 478567 DUKASCOPY, with the registration date of November 17, 2000; Swiss trademark registration No. 585516 – DUKASCOPY, with the registration date of April 20, 2009; International trademark registration No. 752642– DUKASCOPY, designated among others for China, with the registration date of January 30, 2001 and International trademark registration No. 1013119 DUKASCOPY, designated among others for China, with the registration date of April 27, 2009.
The Complainant also developed a formidable presence on the Internet and is the owner of several domain names, which contain the name "Dukascopy". For example: <dukascopy.com>, <dukascopybank.com>, <dukascopy-bank.com> and <dukscopy-bank.net>.
The disputed domain name <dukascopyasia.com> was registered on August 9, 2010.
The disputed domain name <dukascopyasia.com> leads Internet users to a website that appears to be a copy of the Chinese version of the Complainant's website while using the Complainant’s DUKASCOPY mark.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondents on February 7, 2011, informing the Respondent of the Complainant’s intellectual property rights in the mark DUKASCOPY and demanding that the Respondent will transfer the disputed domain name within 10 days to the Complainant. The Respondent did not reply.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the DUKASCOPY trademark, in which the Complainant has rights, seeing that it incorporates the DUKASCOPY trademark as a whole.
The Complainant further argues that the addition of the descriptive word “Asia” is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the DUKASCOPY trademark and the disputed domain name.
DUKASCOPY trademark and is not affiliated or otherwise connected to the Respondent.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, or has acquired trademark rights in the term “dukascopy”.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
DUKASCOPY trademark at the time he registered the disputed domain name.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark DUKASCOPY. For example: Swiss trademark registration No. 478567 DUKASCOPY, with the registration date of November 17, 2000; Swiss trademark registration No. 585516 – DUKASCOPY, with the registration date of April 20, 2009; International trademark registration No. 752642– DUKASCOPY, designated among others for China, with the registration date of January 30, 2001 and International trademark registration No. 1013119- DUKASCOPY, designated among others for China, with the registration date of April 27, 2009.
The disputed domain name <dukascopyasia.com> differs from the registered DUKASCOPY trademark by the additional word “Asia” and the additional gTLD “.com”.
The disputed domain name integrates the Complainant’s DUKASCOPY trademark in its entirety, as a dominant element.
The additional word “Asia” does not serve sufficiently to distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s DUKASCOPY trademark, as it is a descriptive element that refers to a geographical location.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Thus, the gTLD “.com” is without legal significance since the use of a gTLD is technically required to operate the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its DUKASCOPY trademark or a variation of it. The Respondent did not submit a response and did not provide any evidence to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
The Complainant submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant registered its trademark. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant and the trademark search performed by the Panel, the Complainant owns a registration for the DUKASCOPY trademark since the year 2000. It is suggestive of the Respondent’s bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name (Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace, WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
The Complainant also provided evidence to demonstrate its trademark's goodwill. The Panel cites the following with approval: "The Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Trade Mark, cannot be a coincidence… Given the fame of the Trade Mark, there is no other conceivable interpretation of the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name other than that of bad faith" (Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Zhang Yulin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0947). It is therefore unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant upon registering the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name leads Internet users to a website that appears similar to the Chinese version of the Complainant's website, while using the Complainant’s DUKASCOPY mark without its authorization.
The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s mark is clear evidence in the Panel’s view that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and of the use the Complainant is making of its DUKASCOPY trademark, and indicates that the Respondent’s primary intent with respect to the disputed domain name is to trade off the value of these. The Respondent’s actions therefore constitute bad faith. See Herbalife International, Inc. v. Surinder S. Farmaha, WIPO Case No. D2005-0765, stating that “the registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant’s trademark registration amounts to bad faith".
In the present circumstances, this constitutes additional evidence of the Respondent's bad faith (ALSTOM v. STOCKMARKET DOMAINS, WIPO Case No. D2008-1542).
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 <dukascopyasia.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.