Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd v Guiying5 Hong

WIPO Case No. D2023-1823

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd v. Guiying5 Hong

Case No. D2023-1823

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kane Kessler, PC, United States.

The Respondent is Guiying5 Hong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <black-diamondus.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 24, 2023. connection with the disputed domain name. On April 25, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 11, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 1, 2023.

The Center appointed Theda König Horowicz as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a provider of outdoor apparel and climbing equipment under the trademark BLACK

DIAMOND.

inter alia

The Complainant owns several registrations of the trademark BLACK DIAMOND, , the United States equipment and protection devices.

The Complainant also holds several domain names that contain its BLACK DIAMOND trademark, including the domain name <blackdiamondequipment.com> which resolves to the Complainant’s official website.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 17, 2022.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website purportedly offering outdoor and climbing goods under the

Complainant’s trademark BLACK DIAMOND.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BLACK DIAMOND trademark in which the Complainant has rights because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the letters “us” after “diamond” are not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity. In this frame, the Complainant further contends that the Respondent is operating the website posted under the disputed domain name to offer for sale counterfeit goods that are falsely identified and labelled as BLACK DIAMOND goods. The Respondent is also falsely holding itself out as the Complainant and/or affiliated with and/or an authorized distributor of the Complainant.

The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge.

The Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. By using the domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the

Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and of a product or service on the

Respondent’s website or location.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the

Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i)        that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

page 3

(ii)       that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)      that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown to have obtained trademark rights in BLACK DIAMOND in the United States.

According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This test

typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark BLACK DIAMOND since it contains this mark in entirety. The addition of the letters “us”, most likely as a reference to the United States, and the hyphen, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the relevant trademark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and as
such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0.

The Panel therefore finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate when a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. The list includes:

(i)        the use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)       being commonly known by the domain name; or

(iii)      the making of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers.

Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case against the Respondent under this ground, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut it. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant has made sufficient statements in order to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In particular, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks.

page 4

There is no evidence showing that the Respondent would be commonly known by the disputed domain name or that a legitimate business would be run by the Respondent under the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the burden of production shifts to the
Respondent who has chosen not to reply.

The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings.

As already stated before, nothing is contained in the case file which would show that the disputed domain name has been legitimately noncommercial or fairly used by the Respondent or that the Respondent would have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s BLACK DIAMOND trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the letters “us” (which refers to the Complainant’s location), along with its use for a website selling the same type of goods than the Complainant including goods bearing the Complainant’s BLACK DIAMOND trademark which the Complainant identified as allegedly counterfeited goods do not show that the Respondent would have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove both registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i)        circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)       the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)      by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the

holder’s respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s respondent’s
website or location.

Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Given the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the disputed domain name identically reproduces the Complainant’s BLACK DIAMOND trademark, separated by an hyphen “-”, and the use to which the

page 5

disputed domain name is put which is resolving to an online shop purportedly offering the Complainant’s BLACK DIAMOND branded products, it is inconceivable to the Panel that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and business.

The Complainant further contends that the BLACK DIAMOND goods offered on the Respondent’s website are allegedly counterfeits. The Panel considers that the Respondent disrupts the Complainant’s business by using the disputed domain name to offer unauthorized or allegedly counterfeit products that compete with the Complainant’s genuine products and such behavior is another indication of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. The Respondent has not contested this allegation and his silence of the Respondent in these proceedings is an additional evidence of bad faith in these circumstances. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name.

7. Decision

For 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 <black-diamondus.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Theda König Horowicz/
Theda König Horowicz
Sole Panelist
Date: July 14, 2023