Europcar International S.A.S.U. v. Zu Che Ba

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.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are 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.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

The Complainant demonstrated that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name <europcar.wang>. The Respondent has registered the domain name without any authorization from Complainant who is the legitimate holder of the trademark. The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant has used the Chinese Mark and French Mark extensively since 2010 and 1998 respectively. He is running Chinese and French websites which incorporate the EUROPCAR mark (www.europcar.cn and www.europcar.fr) and were registered in 2003 and 1999. Currently the website under the domain name <europcar.wang> is out of order and therefore the Respondent is not using the Domain Name for any purpose. Respondent has not proven otherwise.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

The Respondent has registered and used the domain name <europcar.wang> in bad faith and the Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. That is so for the following reasons. First, Complainant's trademark is famous and widely used. The complainant has demonstrated that the first page of results from a Google search for 'EUROPCAR' and 'EUROPCAR China' are exclusively associated with the Complainant. Accordingly, Respondent must have known of Complainant's famous trademark at the time of the registration of the domain name and must also have known that the registration of the domain names was in bad faith. Also, the Respondent can misuse the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users who are presumably looking for official sites of Complainant. Nevertheless, the inaction (eg. passive holding) in relation to a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith. Because the Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. Furthermore, according to the official phonetic system for transcribing Chinese characters into Latin alphabet, ‘wang’ is the Mandarin pronunciation of a number of Chinese characters, and it means titles in Chinese nobility, best of its kind, web or net. It is widely used in Chinese language. On the ground of above mentioned, the Complainant has demonstrated that he has active business with an impact on the Chinese territory under the mark ‘EUROPCAR‘ and the identical domain name <europcar.wang> has been registered in order to prevent him from reflecting the mark in the corresponding domain name.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

	Complainant Submitted: August 20, 2014
	Commencement: August 21, 2014
	Default Date: September 5, 2014
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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: Europcar International S.A.S.U. of Voisins-le-Bretonneux, France
	Complainant Representative: Taylor Wessing LLP Randeep S Grewal of London, United Kingdom

	Respondent: Zu Che Ba Zu Che Ba of mei guo mei guo, BJ, II, cn

	Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited
	Registrars: 成都西维数码

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner