Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2019-1333 of Tribunal Arbitral de la OMPI, August 08, 2019 (case Bulgari S.p.A. v. Guo Shao Qing)
|Defense:||Guo Shao Qing|
|Resolution Date:||August 08, 2019|
|Issuing Organization:||Tribunal Arbitral de la OMPI|
Complainant is Bulgari S.p.A., Italy, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
Respondent is Guo Shao Qing, China.
The disputed domain name [bvlgariring.com] is registered with Xiamen Nawang Technology Co., Ltd (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 11, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 21, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
On June 21, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on June 24, 2019. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 18, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 19, 2019.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on July 26, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
Complainant, Bulgari S.p.A., is a company incorporated in Italy. Founded in 1884 by Sotirio Bulgari, Complainant operates its business in the luxury goods and hotel industry, and is particularly known for its high-end goods, such as rings, watches, necklaces, and fragrance products (Annex 4 to the Complaint). Complainant opened its first international locations in New York, Paris, Geneva, and Monte Carlo in the 1970s. Complainant currently has more than 230 retail locations worldwide.
Complainant has registered a number of trademarks for BVLGARI in various jurisdictions, including an international trademark registration covering China (international trademark registration number 494237, registered on July 5, 1985, designating China), a trademark registration in Canada (Canadian trademark registration number TMA312178, registered on March 14, 1986), and a trademark registration in the United States of America (“US”) (US trademark registration number 1694380, registered on June 16, 1992) (Annex 9 to the Complaint). Complainant’s registered the domain name of its official website, “www.bulgari.com”, on February 17, 1998, and has had a strong web presence since that date.
In addition, Complainant has a global presence, including particular repute in the jurisdiction of China, where it has many points-of-sale (Annex 7 to the Complaint). It has invested significantly to increase the BVLGARI brand’s presence in China, in addition to collaborating with Chinese artists and opening new hotels in Shanghai and Beijing (Annex 8 to the Complaint).
Respondent is Guo Shao Qing, China. Respondent registered the disputed domain name [bvlgariring.com] on January 30, 2019, which is long after Complainant’s registration of the BVLGARI trademarks in the US (since 1992), and the international registration covering China (since 1985). The disputed domain name directed to a website which displays links to various websites unrelated to Complainant, and there is evidence that purchases can be made on these websites (Annex 12 and 16 to the Complaint).
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BVLGARI marks.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name [bvlgariring.com] be transferred to it.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL