Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0582.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:18:14+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Compagnie Gervais Danone, Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Dreyfus & Associ�s, France.
The Respondent is Yao Renfa, Zhe Jiang, China.
The disputed domain name <groupedanone.mobi> is registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2008. On April 15, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On April 16, 2008, Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
In response to the Center’s Complaint Deficiency Notification on April 16, 2008, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint which the Center received on April 21, 2008.
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 April 22, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 12, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 13, 2008.
The Center appointed Soh Kar Liang as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 2008. 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 is a subsidiary of Groupe Danone (a French company). Groupe Danone is a global leader of fresh dairy products and bottled waters. In 2006, Groupe Danone achieved sales of 14 billion euros. In 2007, Groupe Danone acquired NUMICO, a leader in baby food and clinical nutrition.
10% of Groupe Danone’s turnover comes from China. China is the third country after France and Spain where Groupe Danone reported the highest sales in 2006. Of its 90,000 employees worldwide, over 20,000 are in China. Groupe Danone recently (February 5, 2008), entered into a joint venture with Weight Watchers in China.
Groupe Danone invests almost 140 million euros annually in research and development. Since 1991, it has established 16 Danone Institutes worldwide (including in Beijing) to promote public health development and dissemination of knowledge on nutrition, diet and health. These institutes have sponsored over 800 research programs worldwide, over 135 conferences, brought out 75 publications and set up 72 public education programs.
The Complainant has registered trade marks comprising the word “danone” throughout the world, including 21 international trade mark registrations (China is a designated state in all 21 international trade mark applications). The Complainant also owns domain name registrations for <danone.com>, <danone.fr>, <groupdanone.com>, <danone.eu> and <danone.ec>.
The Complainant came to know of the disputed domain name on or before November 21, 2007. Attempts by the Complainant to access the disputed domain name on September 11, 2007 and April 7, 2008 using Microsoft Internet Explorer were unsuccessful.
On November 21, 2007, the Complainant through their attorneys, Cabinet Dreyfus & associ�s, issued a cease and desist letter to the Respondent by registered mail, email and facsimile transmission advising the Respondent that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and created a risk of confusion in the mind of consumers, the registration and use of the disputed domain name was a trade mark infringement and constitutes unfair competition, and the reproduction of the Complainant’s logo trade marks on the website also constituted copyright infringement. The Complainant further gave the Respondent 48 hours to immediately cease use of the disputed domain name, transfer the disputed domain name, undertake not to use the trade marks DANONE in the future, and assume the Complainant’s associated costs. Reminders were also sent to the Respondent on January 4, 2008 and January 29, 2008. The Respondent neither replied to the Complainant’s demand nor the reminders.
It should also be highlighted the failed attempts by the Center to communicate with the Respondent by email using the email addresses provided by the Respondent according to the WhoIs record of the disputed domain name. All emails bounced with permanent fatal errors indicating that the email addresses do not effectively exist.
3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s trade marks. The Respondent had in mind the Complainant and its parent company when registering the disputed domain name. In view of the strong reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark, use by the Respondent who has no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith.
Since the Registration Agreement is in Chinese, the default language of the proceedings should have been Chinese. However, paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceedings having regard to the circumstances. The Complainant has requested in the Complaint that English should be the language of the proceedings.
In determining the language of the proceedings, it is important to ensure both fairness to the Parties, and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. There are many UDRP decisions which highlighted the risk of language requirements resulting in undue burden and undue delay (eg, Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No. D2006-593; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432; CPS 1 Realty LP. v. DomainAgent.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-0869 and Beiersdorf AG v. Good Deal Communications, WIPO Case No. D2000-1759).
6) The use of Chinese would impose a significant burden on the Complainant and not be in accord with the interest of speed and low cost of proceedings under the UDRP.
Guided by the prior UDRP decisions highlighted above, the Panel is particularly persuaded by the last three points of the Complainant. In addition, the Panel also noted that the Respondent was given ample opportunity by the Center to obstruct the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent was clearly aware of the situation it faced in terms of the disputed domain name and the procedural issue of the language of the proceedings since all communication from the Center to the Respondent was sent in Chinese in addition to English. Despite that, the Respondent has chosen to contest neither the proceedings nor the request for English to be the language of the proceedings.
Although the Panel hesitates to suggest that a complainant should be free to choose the language of uncontested proceedings, it would be a patent waste of time, effort and cost to translate all documents of a set of proceedings for a respondent who should be fully aware of his position and the stakes in the proceedings but who has declined to exercise his right to be heard.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceedings. It would be abjectly unfair and unilaterally burdensome on the Complainant otherwise in the circumstances.
3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations, including international trade mark registrations, in the trade mark DANONE which precede the registration of the disputed domain name. DANONE is clearly a prior trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
3) There have been many thwarted attempts of other parties to register and hold domain names incorporating the trade mark DANONE.
Although not identical to the Complainant’s trade mark DANONE, the disputed domain name incorporates it in its entirety. Unless the other elements of the disputed domain name are capable of distinguishing the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trade mark, confusing similarity may be established (eg, AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally, WIPO Case No. D2005-0758).
It should be noted that the disputed domain name is identical to the name of the Complainant’s parent company, Groupe Danone. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, the Panel is prepared to accept the Complainant’s submission that the addition of “groupe” to “danone” could increase the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark DANONE. Further, the addition of generic elements like “groupe” is insufficient to create a distinguishable sign from the original such that the issue of likelihood of confusion may be avoided. This position is consistent with many past UDRP decisions (eg, The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2005-1137 and Compagnie Gervais Danone v Youngmi Park, NAF Case No. FA546800).
Therefore, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark DANONE and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. In achieving the above conclusion, the Panel also kept in mind the well established practice of disregarding the gTLD portion of a domain name for purposes of comparing the domain name against a prior trade mark of a Complainant (eg, see Gerling Beteiligungs-GmbH (GBG) v. World Space Corp, WIPO Case No. D2006-0223 and DZ Bank AG v. Bentz, WIPO Case No. D2006-0414).
4) The fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the parent company of the Complainant is highly suspicious and requires explanation by the Respondent.
The Respondent has failed to provide any justification of a right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name despite the above cogent factors. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.
Given the significant well-known status of the Complainant’s trade mark DANONE and trade mark registrations for the trade mark, it is inconceivable without the benefit of additional information that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trade mark rights in DANONE. Further, the selection of a domain name that is identical to the name of the Complainant’s parent company required explanation which was not forthcoming from the Respondent.
The instances of bad faith registration and use referred to in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not exhaustive. Passive holding of a domain name could in some circumstances amount to bad faith. The Panel was referred to Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 where a well-known mark was registered as a domain name by the Respondent in that case. The Respondent did not conduct any relevant legitimate commercial or non-commercial activity and had taken deliberate steps to conceal its true identity. The domain name <telstra.org> did not resolve to any on-line presence and no evidence exists that such presence was forthcoming. Based on the special circumstances, the Panel there decided the case against the Respondent.
8) In view of the trade mark rights of the Complainant in relation to the trade mark DANONE, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible legitimate actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
The above circumstances points suspiciously to bad faith registration and use. Although there is a possibility that the Respondent had inadvertently omitted to update his email particulars in relation to the disputed domain name, the failure of the Respondent to provide any explanation, or for that matter, respond to the cease and desist letter and Complaint raises an adverse inference that the Respondent has no justifiable explanation.
In the light of the factual circumstances outlined above, this Panel must conclude that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent.
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, <groupedanone.mobi> be transferred to the Complainant.

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