Lone Star Global Acquisitions. Ltd. v. Wen MengYa
Claim Number: FA1703001721005
Complainant is Lone Star Global Acquisitions. Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by W. Scott Brown of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Texas, USA. Respondent is Wen MengYa (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lonestarfunds.net>, registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd.
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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 9, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 9, 2017. The Complaint was received in both Chinese and English.
On March 17, 2017, Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lonestarfunds.net> domain name is registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., 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 March 21, 2017, the Forum served the Chinese Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 10, 2017 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@lonestarfunds.net. Also on March 21, 2017, the Chinese 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.
A timely Response was received on March 30, 2017.
On April 14, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sebastian M W Hughes 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a company incorporated in Bermuda and the owner of U.S. Registration No. 3633505 for the trademark LONE STAR FUNDS (the “Trade Mark”), filed on March 5, 2002 and registered on June 9, 2009. Complainant has used the Trademark continuously since 1998 in respect of private equity investment services.
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent commenced operations in January 2017. Respondent registered the domain name to provide consulting services to Chinese early-stage startup companies, such as management structure planning and capital-raising training. Respondent has used the Chinese characters 隆星资本 in combination with its English translation LONE STAR FUNDS.
Respondent is in the process of registering 隆星资本 as its trademark because the Chinese government doesn’t allow combinations of Chinese and English characters for trademarks. Nevertheless, since LONE STAR FUNDS provides the best translation and has been used ONLY along with the Chinese characters, Respondent decided to register the domain name to protect its brand identity.
The third-party web developer that Respondent hired is currently designing and building the front-end part of the website to which the domain name will be resolved. These preliminary designs manifest Respondent’s business and show a completely distinguished brand from Complainant.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to transfer of the domain names.
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.
The domain name is identical to the Trademark.
Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The undisputed evidence shows that the domain name has never been used.
As the domain name is identical to the Trademark, Respondent’s plans to use the domain name in respect of its putative website do not, in all the circumstances, give rise to any rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent does not possess any trademark rights in respect of the domain name or in respect of the composite Chinese and English language LONE STAR device mark it plans to use.
The Panel would also note that Respondent’s assertion that the Chinese Trademarks Office does not allow combinations of Chinese and English trademarks is not correct.
In all the circumstances, and given in particular the fact the domain name is identical to the Trademark, the Panel has no hesitation in concluding that Respondent’s registration and passive use of the domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use.
Respondent’s evidence of its intended use of the domain name in respect of the planned provision of the same services provided by Complainant under the Trademark since 1998 provides further evidence of bad faith, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In light of the above, Panel does not find Respondent’s assertion that it did not know of Complainant and of its Trademark at the time of registration of the domain name convincing.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lonestarfunds.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sebastian M W Hughes, Panelist
Dated: April 24, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page