Coupang Corporation v. jin yong lv
Claim Number: FA2103001936241
Complainant is Coupang Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is jin yong lv (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <china-coupang.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 11, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 11, 2021.
On March 12, 2021, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <china-coupang.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) 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 15, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 5, 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@china-coupang.com. Also on March 15, 2021, the Chinese language 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 April 9, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Coupang Corporation, is an online retail shopping company.
Complainant has rights in the COUPANG mark based on its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as its registration with multiple national trademark registries worldwide.
Respondent’s <china-coupang.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, simply adding the geographic term “China,” a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <china-coupang.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the name and is not authorized by Complainant to use the COUPANG mark. Further, Respondent fails to use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent passes itself off as Complainant potentially in furtherance of fraud.
Respondent registered and uses the <china-coupang.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of fraud. Additionally, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COUPANG mark when it registered the at-issue domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the COUPANG mark.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in COUPANG.
Respondent’s uses the <china-coupang.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration for its COUPANG trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as is any one of COMPLAINANT’s other national registrations for such mark worldwide. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <china-coupang.com> domain name contains Complainant’s COUPANG trademark prefixed by the geographic term “china” and a hyphen, with all followed by a domain name-necessary top-level domain name, here “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <china-coupang.com> domain name from Complainant’s COUPANG mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <china-coupang.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG trademark. See General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent’s <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s GM mark as the addition of the geographic term “uzbekistan” is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “jin yong lv” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <china-coupang.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <china-coupang.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <china-coupang.com> domain name to address a website that displays Complainant’s logo and copies the overall look and feel of Complainant’s website. The website also shows false contact information and is presumably used to implement a phishing scheme that collects personal information from internet users that were deceived into signing up for the website’s fraudulent services. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <china-coupang.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding each domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above with regard to rights and legitimate interest, Respondent uses the <china-coupang.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business thus showing Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and further constitutes attraction for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
Finally, Respondent registered <china-coupang.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the COUPANG mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to address a website that displays Complainant’s logo and mimics the look and feel of Complainant’s official website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <china-coupang.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <china-coupang.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page