Bobo Choses, S.L. v Jianhua22 Shao

WIPO Case No. D2022-4858

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bobo Choses, S.L. v. Jianhua22 Shao

Case No. D2022-4858

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bobo Choses, S.L., Spain, represented by March Trade Mark, S.L., Spain.

The Respondent is Jianhua22 Shao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bobochoses-shop.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 December 19,

2022. On December 19, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 20, 2022, 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 sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 21,
2022, providing the further registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. The Complainant
filed the amended Complaints on January 5, 2023, and January 9, 2023 respectively, correcting the Mutual

Jurisdiction.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 29, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 30, 2023.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 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 has since 2008 operated a Spanish based clothing brand for children and now also for adults. It owns the domain name <bobochoses.com> from which it offers its clothing products. It also owns various trade mark registrations including European Union trade mark registration number 005871348 for BOBO CHOSES, registered on February 29, 2008 and Chinese trade mark registration number 13072200 for BOBO CHOSES, registered on February 28, 2016.

The Respondent is based in China and the disputed domain name was registered on July 5, 2022. It resolves to a website on which clothing is offered for sales under the BOBO CHOSES trade mark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights for its BOBO CHOSES mark as noted above and that its trade mark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name.

The Complainant says that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without its consent and that based on its searches the Respondent does not hold any trade mark rights in the disputed domain name. It further says that the Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name with full

knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark and business based on the fact that the disputed domain name
resolves to a website that looks very similar to the Complainant’s website at “ and

uses images from that website and falsely asserts that it sells clothing under the BOBO CHOSES trade mark when this has not been authorised and the clothes offered have not been manufactured by the Complainant.

Further, says the Complainant, when purchasers order and pay for goods on the Respondent’s website, the

purchased products are never delivered. This says the Complainant is not bona fide conduct and is entirely

inconsistent with the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

This conduct says the Complainant amounts to registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain

name and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and the fraudulent website to which it

resolves is causing enormous damages to the Complainant’s reputation and business.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its BOBO CHOSES mark and in particular European Union trade mark registration 005871348. The disputed domain name wholly

incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of a dash

and the word “shop” after the BOBO CHOSES mark in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding

of confusing similarity. As a result, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of

the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without its consent and that based on its searches the Respondent does not hold any trade mark rights in the disputed domain name. It has further asserted that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full

page 3

knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark and business based on the fact that the disputed domain name

resolves to a website that looks very similar to the Complainant’s website at “ and

uses images from that website. The Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name purports to are not manufactured by the Complainant. The Complainant has also submitted that when purchasers order

sell clothing under the BOBO CHOSES trade mark and uses this mark as if it was the Complainant. The

and pay for goods on the Respondent’s website the purchased products are never delivered, although it has

provided no evidence to support this allegation.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has failed to respond to or to

rebut the Complainant’s case and therefore the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under this

element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered in middle 2022 many years after the Complainant’s registration of

its BOBO CHOSES trade mark. The BOBO CHOSES trade mark is a highly distinctive mark and appears to

have developed some degree of reputation since the Complainant’s original establishment of its business in

2008. The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to be owned by or
associated with the Complainant and which uses the BOBO CHOSES mark and images from the

Complainant’s website and purports to offer clothing products under the mark creates a very strong inference that the Respondent was very well aware of the BOBO CHOSES mark and the Complainant’s business at

the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy there is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith where a Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as

to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

It is apparent that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name intentionally for the

purpose of re-directing Internet users to a website that purports to masquerade as if it is the Complainant’s

or is associated with the Complainant and which offers products under the BOBO CHOSES mark in order to
confuse Internet users into thinking that they are dealing with the Complainant or its authorised supplier
when this is not the case. This is obviously for the commercial benefit of the Respondent and is the classic
sort of conduct that the Policy sets out to proscribe. The Panel finds that such use fulfils the requirements of
paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad

faith. Accordingly, the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy.

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 <bobochoses-shop.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Alistair Payne/

Alistair Payne

Sole Panelist
Date: February 12, 2023