Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1521
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:07:27+00:00

Document:
The Respondent is Long Wang of Guangzhou, Guangdong, the People’s Republic of China.
The disputed domain name <feiyue-kungfu-shoes.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 9, 2010. On September 10, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 11, 2010, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 15, 2010.
- registered as an International Registration (registration No. 948536) for clothing, footwear (except orthopedic footwear), headgear in class 25 on November 14, 2007.
- registered in the United States of America (registration No. 3253429) for canvas shoes; leather shoes; training shoes in class 25 on June 19, 2007.
- registered in Canada (registration No. TMA735034) for canvas shoes, vulcanized shoes, sneakers, sport shoes in class 25 on February 24, 2009.
- registered as a Community Trade Mark (registration No. 006362669) for footwear (except orthopedic) in class 25 on December 4, 2008.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 4, 2010.
“www.feiyue-kungfu-shoes.com” website originate from the Complainant, or at least that the Respondent is authorized to sell those goods by the Complainant, which is not the case. The disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to the earlier FEIYUE trade mark owned by the Complainant.
The Respondent’s name does not include the word “feiyue-kungfu-shoes” or “feiyue”. According to online databases, the Respondent is not the owner of any European, Canadian, United States trade marks for FEIYUE or trade marks containing the word “feiyue”. The Respondent does not have any relationship with the Complainant and is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trade mark, particularly in a domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known under the name “FEIYUE-KUNGFU-SHOES” or “FEIYUE”. The Respondent is not making a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue” within the meaning of the Policy. On the contrary, the disputed domain name leads the consumer to a website which promotes canvas shoes on which the FEIYUE trade mark is affixed without the authorization of the Complainant.
The use of the Complainant’s trade mark, without its authorization, by the Respondent in connection with identical or similar goods to those provided by the Complainant would violate the exclusive trade mark rights of the Complainant and as a consequence does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The Respondent does not use the domain name in relation to a “bona fide offering of goods”. The use of the FEIYUE trade mark as a domain name and the promotion of goods infringing the Complainant’s trade mark on the related website are only aimed at harming the Complainant’s reputation for the Respondent’s own commercial benefit. Such use of the disputed domain name including the Complainant’s trade mark for commercial purposes does not constitute a bone fide use.
“www.feiyue-kungfu-shoes.com” website to promote the sale of FEIYUE branded canvas shoes which directly compete with the goods sold by the Complainant. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark in any manner whatsoever. The Complainant has neither authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name, nor to sell goods similar to the ones sold by the Complainant particularly on the “www.feiyue-shoes.com” website under the Complainant’s trade mark. The use of the Complainant’s word and device trade mark FEIYUE by the Respondent as a domain name and on the website is evidence of the Respondent’s knowledge of the FEIYUE trade mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name on March 4, 2010. The Respondent’s website is indeed in English and therefore intentionally directed to consumers in countries where the Complainant owns and uses its trade mark. This unauthorized registration and use of FEIYUE trade mark has obviously been done “to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s 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 the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location” within the meaning of the Policy.
- In Dr. Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Above.com Domain Privacy/Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-1253, the disputed domain name <drmartenshoes.com> was found to be confusingly similar to the DR. MARTENS trade mark.
- In NIKE, Inc. v. Bestinfo, WIPO Case No. D2002-0543, the disputed domain name <nikeshoes.com> was found to be confusingly similar to the NIKE trade mark.
- In Hugo Boss A.G. v. Robert F. Walsh, WIPO Case No. D2000-1135, the disputed domain names <bossshoes.com>, <bossshoes.net> and <bossshoes.org> were found to be confusingly similar to the BOSS, HUGO BOSS and BOSS HUGO BOSS trade marks.
<feiyue-sneakers.com> was found to be confusingly similar to the FEIYUE trade mark.
- In ECCO Sko A/S v. He Shaonan, Lin Zhiyuan, Qinghuo Ou, WIPO Case No. D2010-0650, the disputed domain names <eccoshoesoutlet.com>, <eccoshoesoutlets.com> and <eccoshoesoutlets.net> were found to be confusingly similar to the ECCO trade mark.
- In PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case D2003-0696, the disputed domain names inter alia <pepsibasketball.com>, <pepsicricket.com>, <pepsifootball.net>, <pepsigolf.com>, <pepsihockey.com>, <pepsirugby.com>, <pepsiski.com>, <pepsisoccer.com>, <pepsitennis.com> and <pepsivolleyball.com> were found to be confusingly similar to the PEPSI trade mark.
- In adidas-Salomon AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, Patrick Williamson, WIPO Case No. D2006-0748, the disputed domain names inter alia <addidasgolf.com>, <adidasfootball.com>, <adidasskate.com> and <adidassoccer.com> were found to be confusingly similar to the ADIDAS trade mark.
- In Reebok International Limited v. Domain Privacy Service, Hong Kong Names LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0359, the disputed domain name <reebokhockey.com> was found to be confusingly similar to the REEBOK trade mark.
The Panel agrees with the above decisions and concludes that the disputed domain name in this matter is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FEIYUE trade mark.
The Complainant has made allegations against the Respondent as to its lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Respondent’s name, as shown in the public WhoIs record and as confirmed by the Registrar, does not include the words “feiyue-kungfu-shoes” or “feiyue” and the Respondent does not appear to be from the evidence available in the present record commonly known as “feiyue-kungfu-shoes” or “feiyue”. Online trade mark searches carried out by the Complainant reveal no results of any trade marks containing the word “feiyue” registered under the name of the Respondent. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and the Complainant has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to use the FEIYUE trade mark, particularly as a domain name. The disputed domain name formerly resolved to a website which offered canvas shoes with the FEIYUE trade mark for sale. Such use and purpose of the disputed domain name without the authorization of the bona fide trade mark owner shows that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or a bona fide offering of goods and services. All these allegations have gone unchallenged by the Respondent who has chosen not to submit a Response. Thus the Panel finds from the submissions in the Complaint that the Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel agrees with the rationale of the above decision and finds that in this matter, after considering all of the available evidence, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers for sale, shoes, in direct competition with the Complainant. The goods sold on the said website appear to be affixed with the Complainant’s FEIYUE word and device trade mark which has been registered in many jurisdictions before the creation of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has also reproduced on its website the Complainant’s materials such as photos and an extract of a catalogue which have been taken from the Complainant’s official website. These submissions by the Complainant, coupled with the choice of the disputed domain name, show that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its business and the disputed domain name has been created with the intention to reap commercial benefit generated through the creation of Internet user confusion and customer diversion. This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the Complainant’s trade mark and, as alleged by the Complainant, to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Such registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.
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 <feiyue-kungfu-shoes.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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