Interbrand Group v. Ling Jia
Claim Number: FA1711001759306
Complainant: Interbrand Group of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Aaron B Newell of London, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Ling Jia of Beijing, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Over Corner, LLC
Registrars: Bizcn.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 20, 2017
Commencement: November 21, 2017
Default Date: December 6, 2017
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure, Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Founded in 1974, Complainant is a UK based design consultancy with 29 offices in 22 countries around the world, including in Beijing. It is the registered proprietor of European word mark HMKM, No. 013186143, registered on January 12, 2015. The HMKM brand is used in all 29 of Complainant’s offices and is internationally very well known. In China it is particularly well known as associated with the design of the Galeries Lafayette building in Beijing.
The domain name was registered in the name of Respondent on June 15, 2017. It does not resolve to an active website.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:
1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed; and
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Although the gTLD suffix “.ltd” is of relevance when considering the 2nd and 3rd elements, it is inconsequential for the purpose of determining identity or confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered HMKM trademark, which is in current use.
As to legitimacy and bad faith, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorised to use the HMKM name and is making no legitimate good faith use of the domain name, which features the “.ltd” extension, an abbreviation for Limited. Before joining Complainant, HMKM’s corporate name was HMKM Limited; the domain name risks diverting traffic from Complainant’s official websites, creates a risk of impersonation through e-mail and through any website that might be used at the domain name and risks misleading consumers that it is owned or controlled by Complainant, risking damage to Complainant’s brand and reputation; HMKM is a highly distinctive trade mark and an otherwise random, meaningless combination of letters. The first three pages of Google searches for “HMKM” refer only to Complainant. HMKM means nothing other than Complainant in China. There are no other trademarks filed for HMKM aside from Complainant’s. There is no likelihood that the domain name is not targeting Complainant; the registrant’s name has been referred to as Respondent in a previous successful UDRP dispute relating to www.asianwatts.com, brought against “Jia Ling”, suggesting a pattern of conduct; the registrant has concealed its identity by providing incomplete Whois information, listing its post code as 000000 in “Bei Jing” in the Whois record. Post code 000000 does not exist; there is no conceivable good faith use to which the domain name could be put; it is being passively held and corners the market in the Complainant’s former HMKM registered company name.
Based on the evidence provided, the submissions of Complainant and Respondent’s failure to respond, the Examiner concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that:
(a) Complainant has registered trademark rights in the HMKM name, which is in current use;
(b) Respondent is not known by the domain name, is not authorised to register or use the domain name and has no rights or legitimate interest in that name;
(c) Respondent must have known of Complainant’s HMKM mark when registering the domain name, providing false Whois information, and did so in bad faith; and
(d) In light of the international reputation of the distinctive HMKM mark, there is no conceivable good faith use to which the domain name may be put by anyone other than Complainant, hence Respondent’s passive use of the domain name constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration: <hmkm.ltd>.
Alan L. Limbury, Examiner
Dated: December 07, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page