On 6th May, 2013, Unitalen received an email from Montagut Far East Ltd, which was set up as a solo agent of the P.R.C., HK and Macau to represent BONNETERIE CEVENOLE, indicated that there are four domain names registered by the other parties who is neither authorized by Montagut Far East Ltd, nor recognized/authorized by BONNETERIE CEVENOLE. After investigation, Unitalen advised to take action of filing complaints to ADNDRC for domain names china-montagut.com; montagut-china.com and montagucn.com. Accordingly, three of the Complaints were submitted to ADNDRC on 16th July, 2013 in English due to three of the registration agreements were formed in English, and English is the language of the whole proceedings.
Case 1: BONNETERIE CEVENOLE V.S ZHOU HUAN
Disputed domain name: china-montagut.com
The Complainant: BONNETERIE CEVENOLE
The Respondent: Zhou Huan
Mr. Gao Lulin was appointed as the solo panelist in this case on 8th October, 2013, who made a favour decision to the Complainant on 22nd October 2013.
According to the panelist, the Complainant has satisfied the three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Hence, the panelist decided to transfer the disputed domain name “China-montagut.com”. (CN-1300705, ADNDRC). The domain name has been successfully transferred by the registrar Godaddy Operating Company, LLC to the Complainant on 8th November, 2013.
According to The Policy, the Complainant has to illustrate that Respondent has meet three of the findings listed in Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy to prevail:
Regarding to Paragraph 4(a) i, we firstly introduced an extensive business history of the Complainant and pointed out that the Complainant enjoyed “Montagut” trademark rights in varies classes in China. Then, we claimed that the disputed domain name china-montagut.com is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark “montagut” of the Complainant by submitting supportive panel decisions made by WIPO or ADNDRC. In terms of those previous decisions, “china” is normally deeded as the name of a country. Therefore it should not be seen as the distinguish part of the domain name in this case.
Concerning to Paragraph 4(a) ii, we indicated that the Respondent who registered the domain name china-montagut.com, did not invest any product of montagut, instead, the Respondent was attempting to run the website by posting ad of other business or website. Furthermore, we clarify that there neither business connection between the Respondent and the Complainant, nor authorization from the Complainant to the Respondent to register or run the domain name. Finally, we made the conclusion that the Respondent does not enjoy the rights or legitimate interests of the mark “montagtu”.
In respect of the Paragraph 4(a) iii, considering the good reputation the Complainant enjoyed in P.R.C., we argued that the Respondent registered the dispute domain name before knowing the trademark “montagut” by providing evidence that the trademarks “MONTAGUT”, “flower device” and “梦特娇”of the Complainant have been recognized as well-known trademarks by the Trademark Office of the P.R.C. in 2004. Besides, we indicated that the registration of disputed domain name of the Respondent has prevented the Complainant from applying its trademark by registration. We finally emphasized that the disputed domain name was not applied in running any business relative to “montagut” product. Hence, the Respondent did not register it in good faith.
Case 2: BONNETERIE CEVENOLE V.S mike willer
Domain Name: montagutcn.com
The Complainant: BONNETERIE CEVENOLE
The Respondent: Mike Willer
Tang Guangliang was appointed as the solo panelist in this case on 8th October, 2013, who made a favour decision to the Complainant on 22nd October 2013.
According to the panelist, the indentifying part of the disputed domain name “montagutcn” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark “MONTAGUT”; and the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest with the identifying part; and the domain name was registered and subsequently used in bad faith. The panelist therefore decided that the domain name “montagutcn.com” be transferred. (CN-1300704, ADNDRC). The domain name has been successfully transferred by the registrar Name.com, LLC to the Complainant on 12th November, 2013.
In terms of the Policy paragraph 4 (a), we have submitted the following claims for filing complaint of this domain name.
For the purpose of illustrating that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. We provided the report of the Trademark Office which indicated that three of montagut relative trademarks are recognized as well-know trademarks. Moreover, we submitted those advertisements, which published by the Complainant in China to extend its Chinese market, to prove that the Complainant has been putting a lot of efforts in its Chinese market for decades. Finally, we pointed out many previous cases made by WIPO and ADNDRC to illustrate that the domain name part “montagutcn” is not dissimilar to the trademark “montagut” by merely adding “cn” on it.
Regarding to the right or legitimate interests of the Respondent, on the one hand, we submitted the evidence to show that the name “mike willer” of the Respondent has not been applied or well-known as “montagutcn” in China. On the other hand, we clarified that there is neither business connection between the Respondent and the Complainant, nor authorization from the Complainant to the Respondent to register or run the domain name.
As to the bad faith of the Respondent, we indicated not only the time the Respondent registered disputed domain name is much latter than the trademarks of the Complainant being recognized as well-know trademarks, but also the disputed domain name is applied to sell counterfeit goods by the Respondent. Furthermore, we pointed out that the fact the Respondent applied the term “Official Website of MONTAGUT” showed the bad intention of the Respondent when registered the disputed domain name.
Case 3: BONNETERIE CEVENOLE V.S no.365 erlou
Domain Name: montagut-china.com
The Complainant: BONNETERIE CEVENOLE
The Respondent: no. 265 erlou
Ms. Xue Hong was appointed as the solo panelist in this case on 9th September, 2013, who made a favour decision to the Complainant on 23rd September 2013.
According to the panelist, for all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <montagut-china.com> be transferred to the Complainant BONNETERIE CEVENOLE (CN-1300696, ADNDRC). The domain name has been successfully transferred by the registrar Godaddy.com, LLC to the Complainant on 29th October, 2013.
To meet those requirements listed in Paragraph 4(a) so as to fulfill the complaint, we submitted the following statements alone with evidences:
To begin with the identity and confusingly similarity requirement, we mentioned the “montagut” trademark history of the Complainant, provided relevant evidences to show that the Complainant is not only paying attention on his business all over the world, but also registered and intended to protect his trademark in China. Furthermore, we addressed the previous decisions made by WIPO and ADNDRC that by applying china can not increase the dissimilarity of the disputed domain name since “china” is a term which normally reflects a Country CHINA. Therefore, by applying “china” can lead to the confusion to the Chinese market of the Complainant.
Secondly, to demonstrate that the Respondent has no right and legitimate interests, we have done some investigation of how the Respondent applied “china-montagut” in China. However, there is no record of it. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Respondent has never been well-know as “china-montagut” in China. We further assert that there is neither business connection between the Complainant and the Respondent, nor authorization.
Thirdly, to illustrate the bad faith of the Respondent, we indicated the fact that the Respondent applied terms “ Official Website of Montagut” has not only showed bad intention when registered the disputed domain name, but also bring about the confusion of Chinese market of the Complainant, especially those goods sold on the webpage does not come from the Complainant. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent has applied the domain name in good faith.