Blue Wolf Capital Partners, LLC v 刘辉 (Hui Liu)

WIPO Case No. D2024-3752

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Blue Wolf Capital Partners, LLC v. 刘辉 (Hui Liu)

Case No. D2024-3752

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Blue Wolf Capital Partners, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented

by Soteria LLC, United States.

The Respondent is 刘辉 (Hui Liu), China and United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bluewolfcapitals.com> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital

Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on

September 13, 2024. On September 16, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for

registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 18, 2024, the Registrar

transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for

the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact

information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September

18, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the

Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in

English on September 24, 2024.

On September 18, 2024, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the

Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On September 23, 2024, the

Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not

submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese

and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2024. In accordance with

the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2024. The Respondent did not submit

any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 16, 2024.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 2024. 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.

4. Factual Background

Founded in 2005, the Complainant is a middle market private equity firm that invests in buyouts,

recapitalizations and growth capital opportunities. To date, the firm has invested in 32 platforms with 57

follow-on investments in industrial and healthcare companies. The Complainant has a registered trade mark

for BLUE WOLF in the United States under Registration No. 3267409, registered on July 24, 2007 (the

“Trade Mark”). The Complainant uses a logo which comprises the image of half the face of a wolf in blue

and white within a square emblem and the words BLUE WOLF with “Blue” in black colour above “Wolf” which

is in the colour blue (the “Logo”).

The Complainant’s website is found at the domain name, <bluewolfcapital.com>. The Logo appears

prominently on the home page.

The Respondent appears to be based in both China and the United States, according to the registrant

information provided by the Registrar, with a United States address and telephone number and a Chinese

fax number. The disputed domain name was registered on September 5, 2024. The disputed domain name

was connected to a website which displayed the Trade Mark and the Logo prominently, mimicked the

Complainant’s own website including using its images, a navigation bar with the same subject headings as

the Complainant and the Complainant’s address on the Contact Page but with a different email address (the

“Website”). The Website is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer

of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark,

that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that

the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the

Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise

page 3

in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the

registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be

English for the following main reasons:

- The disputed domain name comprise English words;

- the Registrar offers an English version of its website showing its support for English speaking

customers indicates that the Respondent may not necessarily be fluent in Chinese and may in fact be fluent

in English; and

- the Complainant is based in the United States where the majority of the population speaks English.

The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s language request and in fact has failed to file a

response in either English or Chinese despite being duly notified by the Center in both English and Chinese

of the language of the proceeding and of the commencement of the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to

exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all

relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the

proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the

language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2 Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or

threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between

the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark

or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,

the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of the word “capitals” after the Trade Mark may bear on assessment of the second and

third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the word does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity

between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate

rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

page 4

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that

proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible

task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the

respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or

legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with

relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to

come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not

rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence

demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the

Policy or otherwise.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading as it effectively impersonates or

suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant particularly since it is almost identical to the

Complainant’s domain name. The sole difference between the Complainant’s own domain name and the

disputed domain name is the letter “s” at the end of the Complainant’s domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy

establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall

be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Mark when

he/she registered the disputed domain name given the Trade Mark was registered prior to registration of the

disputed domain name and the use of the Trade Mark and Logo on the Website. It is therefore implausible

that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he/she registered the disputed domain name.

In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:

“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in

circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a

respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers),

panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should

have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further

factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,

or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s

mark.”

The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with the Respondent’s choice

of the disputed domain name without any explanation is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1). The disputed domain name falls into the category stated above and the

Panel finds that registration is in bad faith. The addition of the word “capitals” after the Trade Mark further

indicates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of and was targeting the Complainant when registering

the disputed domain name given the fact that the Complainant’s own domain name includes the word

“capital” after the Trade Mark.

page 5

The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith. The unauthorised use of the images from the

Complainant’s website, the Trade Mark, the Logo and the use of the Complainant’s address are clear

indications of use for potentially illegal activity.

The Website prominently displayed the Trade Mark, without any disclaimer disclosing (the lack of)

relationship between the Parties. The content of the Website was calculated to give the impression it has

been authorized by or connected to the Complainant when this is not the case. The Website was set up to

deliberately mislead Internet users into believing that it is connected to, authorised by, or affiliated with the

Complainant. From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to

attract, for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s Website was,

and the services offered on it are those of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant.

It is highly likely that Internet users when typing the disputed domain name into their browser or finding it

through a search engine would have been looking for a site operated by the Complainant rather than the

Respondent. The disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users trying to find the Complainant’s

official website. Such confusion will inevitably result due to the fact that the disputed domain name

comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety.

The fact that the disputed domain name is now inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith given that the

distinctiveness of the Trade Mark, the composition of the disputed domain name and the lack of a response

from the Respondent.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <bluewolfcapitals.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Karen Fong/

Karen Fong

Sole Panelist

Date: November 5, 2024