Midea Group Co., Ltd v. Pan Xuefeng
Claim Number: FA2110001967404
Complainant is Midea Group Co., Ltd (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Pan Xuefeng (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <midea.asia>, registered with Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 4, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 4, 2021.
On October 5, 2021, Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <midea.asia> domain name is registered with Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 5, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 25, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@midea.asia. Also on October 5, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 30, 2021, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <midea.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MIDEA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <midea.asia> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <midea.asia> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Midea Group Co., Ltd, operates a Fortune 500 company that manufactures home appliances. Complainant holds a registration for the MIDEA mark with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) (Reg. 751,860, registered Dec. 19, 2000).
Respondent registered the <midea.asia> domain name on December 21, 2012, and uses it to resolve to a generic error page.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MIDEA mark through its registration with the WIPO. See ECCO SKO A/S v. Bobrov Danila, FA 1770718 (Forum Mar. 12, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the ECCO mark based on a series of trademark registrations via the Madrid Protocol through the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)).
Respondent’s <midea.asia> domain name uses Complainant’s MIDEA mark, and merely adds the “.asia” TLD. The addition of a TLD does not distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) (“The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <midea.asia> domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s MIDEA mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <midea.asia> domain name, as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not an authorized user or licensee of the MIDEA mark. The WHOIS information of record identifies “Pan Xuefeng” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to use the <midea.asia> domain name for a bona fide offer of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain resolves to an inactive website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offer or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name evincing Respondent’s inactive holding of the disputed domain. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <midea.asia> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MIDEA mark. Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), registering a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another’s trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and can be shown by the notoriety of a mark and the use Respondent makes of the disputed domain name. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Complainant operates a Fortune 500 company, and provides information about itself and evidence that its own website has millions of Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MIDEA mark when it registered the disputed domain name, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <midea.asia> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 1, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page