The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Yi Qian, Fo Shan Shi Shun De Qu Lun Jiao Le Gao Ji Qi Ren Jiao Yu Chuang Yi Huo Dong Zhong Xin of Foshan, Guangdong, China.
The disputed domain name <sd-lego.com> is registered with Foshan YiDong Network Co., LTD (the "Registrar").
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 17, 2016. On August 18, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 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.
On August 19, 2016, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 in both Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 31, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 21, 2016.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on September 28, 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 Complainant is a company incorporated in Denmark and the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the trade mark LEGO (the "Trade Mark"), the earliest (Danish) registration No. VR195400604 dating from May 1, 1954. The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark used in connection with the Complainant's toys and related products and services.
The Respondent is apparently located in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 24, 2016.
The disputed domain name is resolved to a Chinese language website apparently operated by "Foshan City Shunde District Lunjiao Lego Robotic Education Centre" (the "Website"). The Website promotes robotic education services using the Complainant's LEGO building blocks and LEGO educational robot, and displays pictures of constructions built out of the Complainant's LEGO bricks, and depicting the Trade Mark.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. However, paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding.
The Respondent, having received the Center's communication regarding the language of the proceeding in both Chinese and English, did not make any submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. Having received notice of the proceeding in both Chinese and English, the Respondent chose not to file a response.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties' ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.
The Panel considers that, in light of the Respondent's decision to take no part in this proceeding, it would be inappropriate to conduct the proceeding in Chinese, which would necessarily involve extra costs on the part of the Complainant in translating the Complaint into Chinese, and would delay the resolution of this proceeding.
In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which incidentally predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by several decades.
The disputed domain name comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety, together with the non-distinctive letters "sd" (the common acronym for Shunde, the district in China in which the Respondent is apparently based), which does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark in any significant way.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that the Respondent has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website which, without the Complainant's authorisation, seeks to capitalise on the Complainant's reputation in its well-known Trade Mark by promoting the Respondent's education services using the Trade Mark.
The Respondent is not, apparently, engaged in the distribution or resale of the Complainant's LEGO products on the Website. Rather, the Respondent is seeking to use the Complainant's reputation in its Lego building blocks and educational robot to attract customers to the Website. In addition to featuring photographs of Lego products (depicting the Trade Mark), the operator of the Website claims to have attended the Complainant's Lego educational robot training centre.
The Respondent does not offer for sale the Complainant's Lego goods or services on the Website, and does not accurately and prominently disclose the fact the Respondent has no commercial relationship with the Complainant (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.3).
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In light of the evidence of the Respondent's clearly commercial and unauthorised use of the Website in the manner described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 <sd-lego.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 12, 2016