Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-2014
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:18:29+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Barclays Bank PLC of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Pinsent Masons LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Zhongshan Banks Electric Marketing Co. Ltd (中山市比克斯电器营销有限公司) of Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
The disputed domain name <barclaystec.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Guangdong JinWanBang Technology Investment Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2011. On November 15, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 1, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On December 1, 2011, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of proceedings. On December 2, 2011, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of proceeding. On November 29, 2011, prior to the Center’s email regarding the language of proceedings, the Center received an email communication in Chinese from Respondent, however, Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 7, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 27, 2011. Apart from its email communication of November 29, 2011, Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that no further communication had been received from Respondent.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2012. 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.
Complainant, Barclays Bank PLC, is a company incorporated in London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.K.). It is a major global financial services provider engaged in retail banking, credit cards, corporate banking, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services, and it currently operates in over 50 countries and employs approximately 144,000 people.
Complainant is the registered owner of a variety of U.K. registered and Community registered trade marks in the name BARCLAYS in a range of classes including in relation to financial services. (See Annex 4 to the Complaint). The mark BARCLAYS (e.g. mark BARCLAY/BARCLAYS was registered in the U.K. since 1986) was registered long before the registration of the Domain Name (2011). Complainant has also registered numerous domain names incorporating the BARCLAYS marks, such as <barclays.com> (since 1993), and <barclays.co.uk> (since 1996). (See Annex 5 to the Complaint).
Respondent, Zhongshan Banks Electric Marketing Co. Ltd, is a company incorporated in Zhongshan, Guangdong, China. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <barclaystec.com> on May 23, 2011, which is long after Complainant operated web sites with URL which contain the BARCLAYS mark (i.e. <barclays.com> was registered on November 23, 1993).
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant is a major global financial services provider engaged in retail banking, credit cards, corporate banking, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services.
Complainant has traded as Barclays PLC since 1985 (see Annex 3 to the Complaint). Prior to this Complainant traded as Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Bank Limited and Barclay & Company Limited since 1896.
Complainant is the registered proprietor of a variety of U.K. registered and Community registered trade marks in BARCLAYS in a range of classes including in relation to financial services. (see Annex 4 to the Complaint). Through its use of the name BARCLAYS over the last 114 years Complainant has acquired goodwill and a significant reputation in the areas in which it specialises.
The goodwill associated with BARCLAYS is the property of Complainant and cannot pass to any third party without a formal assignation. No such assignation in favour of Respondent has taken place.
The Domain Name contains a word which is identical and therefore confusingly similar to the name BARCLAYS in which the Complainant has common law rights and for which Complainant has registered trade marks.
Given the worldwide fame reputation and notoriety of BARCLAYS, no trader would choose the domain unless with the intention to create a false impression of association with Complainant in order to attract business from Complainant or misleadingly to divert the public from Complainant to Respondent.
“Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 22, 2011”.
The Domain Name is being used as a duplicate site and displays branded content from Complainant's own website, and is being used to redirect internet traffic away from Complainant's own website.
Respondent is not known by the Domain Name.
Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The content found at the Domain Name is a duplicate of Complainant own websites.
Respondent has never asked for, and has never been given any permission by Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's trade mark.
Complainant's agent wrote to Respondent in relation to the Domain Name advising Respondent of Complainant's registered trade marks in BARCLAYS and to ask for the Domain Names to be transferred to Complainant (Annexes 7 and 8 to the Complaint). No response was received from Complainant.
Given the widespread use, reputation and notoriety of the famous BARCLAYS mark, Respondent must have been aware that in registering the Domain Name he was misappropriating the valuable intellectual property of the owner of the BARCLAYS trade marks.
Respondent's registration of the Domain Name has also prevented Complainant from registering a domain name which corresponds to Complainant's trade marks.
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks.
Respondent will never be capable of using the Domain Name for a legitimate purpose as the notoriety of BARCLAYS is such that members of the public will always assume that there is an association between Respondent and Complainant, and/or between Respondent and the BARCLAYS trade mark.
The Domain Name will divert potential custom from Complainant's business due to the presence of links to competitor websites at the Domain Name.
(a) Complainant contends that conducting the proceedings in English would not be disadvantageous to Respondent as Respondent has demonstrated an ability to understand and communicate in English. A large part of Respondent’s website is in English. Complainant infers from the use of English on the website together with the selection of an English domain name that Respondent is able to understand and communicate in English.
(b) The spirit of paragraph 11 of the Rules is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties’ level of comfortability with each language, the expenses to be incurred and possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors.
(c) Complainant is not able to communicate in Chinese and therefore, if Complainant were to submit all documents in Chinese, the administrative proceeding will be unduly delayed and Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation.
“[…] in certain situations, where Respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint (or having been given a fair chance to object has not done so), and Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, the WIPO Centre as a provider may accept the language of the complaint, even if it is different from the language of the registration agreement”. See also L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA, WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).
The Panel has taken into consideration the facts that Complainant is a company incorporated in the U.K., and Complainant will be spared the burden of dealing with Chinese as the language of the proceeding. The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the Domain Name includes the term “tec” – abbreviation of “technology” (Expoconsult B.V. trading as CMP Information v. Roc Guan, WIPO Case No. D2008-1600; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).
On the record, Respondent appears to be a Chinese individual and is thus presumably not a native English speaker, but the Panel finds that persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent may have sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the Domain Name <barclaystec.com> is registered in Latin characters, rather than Chinese script; (b) the Center has notified Respondent of the proceedings in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding; and (c) the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.
The Panel finds that Complainant is the registered proprietor of a variety of U.K. registered and Community registered trade marks in the name BARCLAYS in a range of classes including in relation to financial services since 1986.
The Domain Name <barclaystec.com> comprises the BARCLAYS mark in its entirety. It only differs from the BARCLAYS marks by the addition of “tec”. The Panel finds that these do not eliminate the similarity between Complainant’s registered BARCLAYS marks and the Domain Name.
Mere addition of the descriptive term “tec” or a dash as a suffix to Complainant’s mark fails to distinguish. Thus, the Panel finds that the addition is not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the BARCLAYS Marks in which Complainant has rights.
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 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; see also WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1 and cases cited therein).
Complainant has rights in the BARCLAYS marks in U.K. and European Community. Complainant has traded as Barclays PLC since 1985, and prior to this Complainant traded as Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Bank Limited and Barclay & Company Limited since 1896. Complainant currently operates in over 50 countries and employs approximately 144,000 people.
Moreover, according to Complainant, Respondent is not authorized dealer of Barclays-branded products or services. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; and Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered on May 22, 2011, which is long after Complainant operated web sites with URL which contain the BARCLAYS mark (e.g. “www.barclays.com” was registered on November 23, 1993). The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARCLAYS marks.
It is not conceivable to the Panel that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the Domain Name (in November 2011). The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is not one that one could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant’s BARCLAYS mark.
“With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith”.
Based on information provided by Complainant, Complainant is a major global financial services provider engaged in retail banking, credit cards, corporate banking, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services, and currently operates in over 50 countries and employs approximately 144,000 people. Complainant moves, lends, invests and protects money for more than 48 million customers and clients worldwide, including China (as introduced above). Complainant has registered BARCLAYS mark in the U.K. and European Community since 1986. Complainant has registered and uses the domain name <barclays.com> since 1993 (as introduced above). Moreover, Complainant has received several awards including in 2009 the Lender of the Year during the Bankhall Annual Conference in London; and the Best Leadership Team in Global Private Banking accolade at the Global Private Banking Awards in Geneva. Therefore, Complainant’s BARCLAYS marks, arguably, are well-known trademarks. Further, based on the information provided by the Center, no formal response to the Complaint has been filed by Respondent. Therefore, the inactive Domain Name <barclaystec.com> has arguably been used in bad faith also.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known trademarks, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks 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 Domain Name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website on to which the Domain Name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <barclaystec.com> be transferred to Complainant.

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