With the craziness around numbered domain names it worth noting that the domain name 11315.so was just lost in a UDRP decision handed down by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) proving that even numbered domain names are not exempt from UDRP attack.
Here are the highlights:
The complainant was founded in 2001 and in 2002 entered the credit industry, to create a “11315 Credit Services” logo, and for the credit business activities.
Respondent disputed domain name 11315.so on July 1, 2014.
Based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the Panel noted that the complainant in 2002 entered the credit industry, specializing in the creation of “11315 Credit Services” logo, and the establishment of “11315 national enterprise credit information system”, the complainant’s legal Representative in April 2003 registered the domain name 11315.com for the Complainant’s website. The complainant also provided China National Copyright Administration issued in September 2014 about the complainant’s “corporate credit 11315 Green Shield mark”, “Chinese credit 11315 Green Shield flag” and “11315 Credit Green Shield flag” three art Works “works boarding certificate”, which documented, art works “corporate credit 11315 Green Shield flag” and “11315 Credit Green Shield flag” creation was completed in June 2009, was first published in June 2013, Art “China Credit 11315 Green Shield flag” creation completed and first published in June 2009.
According to the policy decision made earlier show that the complainant claims to an unregistered trademark or common law trademarks unregistered trademark, it shall prove that the mark has become through the use of significant identification and the complainant’s goods or services linked symbol
The complainant provided evidence in the case shows that the disputed domain name registration as early as a few years ago, the complainant has been using the “11315 Credit Services” logo in credit activities, and creation, published a “corporate credit 11315 Green Shield mark”, “China Credit 11315 Green Shield flag” and “11315 Credit Green Shield flag” and other graphical corresponding logo.
The Group believes that the complainant a long-term, sustainable use “11315 Credit Services” logo, has to make contact with the complainant’s credit products and services together, “11315 Credit Services” logo to identify the complainant has the products and Serving sources. Therefore, the Group believes the complainant on the right to claim the rights of unregistered trademark under policies and regulations on the “11315 Credit Services” logo, you can get evidence that can be set up.
Accordingly, the Panel believes that the complaint satisfies the first condition stipulated in Article 4 of the policy (a).
According to the policy decision made earlier show that the complainant was simply submit preliminary evidence that the disputed domain name has no rights or legitimate interests, so as to refute the proof of the burden of proof on the Respondent.
The complainant argued that never authorized the Respondent to use its own name “11315 Credit Services” logo, there is no authorization or license that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <11315.so>.
Evidence provided by the complainant shows that the Respondent on the “11315” is not registered trademark rights in China. The complaint alleges that the Respondent dailianqi line “on behalf of the United Qi”, the complainant had served as regional agents in Qingdao, Shandong province.
The Group believes that the complainant could have been on his knowledge, had submitted preliminary evidence that the disputed domain name is no rights or legitimate interests to meet the burden of proof. Rebut the prima facie burden of proof is therefore transferred to the complainant.
Respondent did not submit his written defense and evidence. Based on available evidence, the panel did not find any consistent with the policy section 4 (c), cited the case of the Respondent can prove that the disputed domain name rights or legitimate interests or any other can prove that the Complainant has rights to the disputed domain name legitimate interests or circumstances.
Accordingly, the Panel believes that the Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests in the complaint in line with the second condition stipulated in Article 4 of the policy (a).
Based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the Group believes that the Respondent knowingly complainant’s credit operations and “11315 Credit Services’ case identified in the July 1, 2014 registered with the complainant.”
In short, the Group believes that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, the complaint satisfy the third condition stipulated in Article 4 of the policy (a)
