About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Corsair S.A. v. Liang Long

Case No. D2016-0873

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Corsair S.A. of Rungis, France, represented by Altana, France.

The Respondent is Liang Long of Huizhou, Guangdong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <corsair.biz> is registered with 1API GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 29, 2016. On May 2, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 3, 2016, 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.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 19, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 8, 2016. The Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent on May 29, 2016. The Respondent did not file a formal Response.

The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 2016. 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 Respondent indicated, in his or her informal response, that the language of the proceedings should be Chinese on the basis that he or she does not understand English.

So, as a preliminary matter, the Panel has to decide on the language of the proceedings. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules says on this subject:

“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 has filed the Complaint in English and wants the proceedings to take place in that language. In response to the Center’s Request for Registrar Verification, the Registrar confirmed that English was the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name. The Panel notes the Respondent’s request above and might have been more sympathetic to the Respondent’s request here if it were not for the fact that a reverse WhoIs search shows that the Respondent holds over 350 domain name registrations. This is not a case where the Respondent has registered a single domain name accidentally through an English-speaking registrar. The Respondent could have sought a translation of the Complaint from the many Chinese-to-English translation services available or assistance from the many bi-lingual law firms in China. For all these reasons and in particular the wording of paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel concludes that English is the language of the proceedings.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant provides travel agency and travel-related information, products and services.

The Complainant owns a number of trademarks in a variety of countries for CORSAIR, including French trademark No. 3925805 which was filed on June 8, 2012.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 21, 2014. The website at the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) webpage with links to the Complainant’s competitors.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CORSAIR.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with a good faith offering of goods or services. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant registered its trademark CORSAIR. The Complainant is well-known worldwide for its activities in the travel industry. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to divert people looking for the Complainant’s website to its own parking website which provides links to competitor airlines. The disputed domain name is for sale in an open auction which suggests that the Respondent has no interest in the name as such except to earn valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses.

B. Respondent

The Respondent’s contentions are limited to a request for the proceedings to take place in Chinese. This has been addressed in more detail in section 3 above.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark CORSAIR, a word with no ordinary meaning, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.biz”. The disputed domain name is at the very least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not called “Corsair” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark which is a made-up word with no independent meaning and the gTLD “.biz”. In the circumstances, there appears to have been no reason for the Respondent to register the disputed domain name except to reflect the Complainant’s trademark. At the very least, the Respondent must have been aware of the possibility that the disputed domain name reflected someone else’s trademark.

Without a substantive response to the Complaint, it is impossible to know exactly why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. In this Panel’s view, one is left with three possible motives for the Respondent’s decision to register the disputed domain name: to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with their customers or potential customers; attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain; or persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name from it for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These all constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent’s motivation may have been more than one of these and perhaps all three.

In any event, the Panel notes that the website resolves to a PPC webpage with links to the Complainant’s competitors in the travel industry, which constitutes bad faith as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

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 <corsair.biz> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: June 22, 2016

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