Bredemeijer Group B.V. v Lei Hu
WIPO Case No. D2023-1867
•21-06-2023
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bredemeijer Group B.V. v. Lei Hu
Case No. D2023-1867
1. The Parties
Complainant is Bredemeijer Group B.V., Netherlands, represented by NLO Shieldmark B. V., Netherlands.
Respondent is Lei Hu, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <bredemeijers.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 26, 2023.
On April 26, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 27, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 1, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified
Respondent’s default on May 25, 2023.
The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 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
Complainant, Bredemeijer, is a Dutch company founded in 1914 that provides teapots and accessories for making tea.
Complainant sells goods in many countries and operates online, owning the domain names
<bredemeijer.com> and <bredemeijergroup.com>.
Complainant owns a wide portfolio of trademark registrations containing the word mark BREDEMEIJER.
Some examples of Complainant’s trademark registrations can be found below:
International
| Registration No. | Trademark | Jurisdictions | Registration Date |
Classes
| 581272 | BREDEMEIJER | Benelux | 14, 16 and 21 | August 01 1996 |
BREDEMEIJER European September 12,
| 018238613 | 16 and 21 |
Union 2020 United
| UK00917681685 | 16 and 21 | June 06, 2018 |
Kingdom
BREDEMEIJER United September 12,
| UK00918238613 | 16 and 21 |
Kingdom 2020 BREDEMEIJER International
| 1237097 | (designated | 16 and 21 | November 18, 2014 |
| in China) |
The disputed domain name was registered on July 21, 2022, and, according to the evidence submitted by
Complainant, resolves to a copycat version of Complainant’s official website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant pleads that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark
BREDEMEIJER, since it fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark BREDEMEIJER.
Complainant affirms that Respondent creates a confusion, considering specially that the disputed domain
name uses the trademark BREDEMEIJER in its entirety with the addition of the letter “s” in the disputed
domain name, not enough to distinguish from Complainant’s trademark, creating a risk of association,
fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(viii) and 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.
Complainant observes that Respondent does not make a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed
domain name, as it would be used to allegedly sell Complainant’s products (an attempt to defraud
customers, according to Complainant) unauthorized and suggest a non-existent affiliation with Complainant’s
business. Complainant contends that the only apparent use of the disputed domain name is to fraudulently
represent to consumers that Respondent is the “official” presence for Complainant.
This way, Complainant states that no legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed by Respondent, thus paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules has been fulfilled.
page 3
In addition, Complainant states that Respondent would not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further,
Respondent has not been authorized, or licensed to use Complainant’s trademark BREDEMEIJER as a
domain name nor is Respondent associated with Complainant.
Complainant states that the requirement for the registration and use of the disputed domain name is fulfilled, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Accordingly, Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed in a UDRP complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph
4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The burden of proving these elements is upon Complainant.
Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the complaint, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, the panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has duly proven that it owns prior registered for BREDEMEIJER, and that the disputed domain
name is constituted by the trademark BREDEMEIJER in its entirety with the sole addition of a letter “s”.
The addition of a letter “s” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant’s trademark
BREDEMEIJER – since the trademark BREDEMEIJER is fully integrated, and recognizable, in the disputed
domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark
BREDEMEIJER, and so the requirement of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is
summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 as follows: “[w]hile 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
page 4
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.”
In this case, noting the facts and contentions listed above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name,
so the burden of production shifts to Respondent. As Respondent has not replied to Complainant’s
contentions, the Panel has considered Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case to be sufficient to
demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It should be noted that Respondent’s lack of response (in the broader context of the case), according to the
above-mentioned guidelines from WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, suggests that Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name that it could put forward.
Furthermore, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in the context of a bona fide offering of goods and services that could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests, since the evidence shows that the
confusingly similar disputed domain name resolves to a website in which Complainant’s products are
allegedly sold by Respondent without a disclaimer underlying the relationship between Complainant an
Respondent (as duly proven on screen captures provided by Complainant enclosed with the Complaint).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances that, without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark
BREDEMEIJER, plus the addition of the letter “s”, which does not prevent a confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that Respondent was or should have been aware of Complainant’s rights to the trademark
BREDEMEIJER at the time of the registration – as Respondent uses the referred trademarks including
Complainant’s logo in the content of the website to sell products with BREDEMEIJER trademarks
unauthorized, as will be discussed further below, proving that Respondent was more likely than not aware of
Complainant’s products and business at the time of registration.
In addition, the use of the disputed domain name in the present circumstances allows a finding of bad faith
registration and use, since Respondent’s website claims to offer products under a domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant’s trademark in an apparent attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users
to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant.
As concluded by the panel in All-Clad Metalcrafters LLC v. Eugene Preston, WIPO Case No. D2021-0799,
the use of a domain name in which complainant’s trademarks are being used to allegedly offer its
products/services unauthorized is an indicative of bad faith:
“This point is further confirmed by Respondent’s use of the Domain Names. The evidence indicates that
Respondent has used the Domain Name <all-clad.store> in an attempt to impersonate Complainant, by
displaying Complainant’s logo and copying pictures of Complainant’s products on Respondent’s site, and
then attempting to profit from the confusion by offering Complainant’s products (or counterfeits) for sale at a
discounted price. Respondent’s actions create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of this Domain Name, and Respondent is using the fame of Complainant’s ALL-
CLAD mark to improperly increase traffic to the site linked to this Domain Name for Respondent’s own
commercial gain. Further, Respondent’s use of the Domain Names <all-clad.club>, <allclad.online> and
<all-cladus.online> disrupts Complainant’s business because they are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
ALL-CLAD mark and the websites linked to them are being used to offer either competing or counterfeit
page 5
goods. The Panel finds that Respondent, through this scheme, has intentionally attempted to attract for
commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s ALL-CLAD marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s
scheme.”
The Panel finds that the circumstance of the present case allows a finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name, considering that Respondent tries to obtain commercial gain by using the
inherently misleading disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage in which Complainant’s products are
supposedly available to purchase.
Moreover, the Panel finds it relevant that Respondent has not provided any evidence of good faith registration or use, or otherwise participated in this dispute. Complainant has put forward serious claims regarding the apparent bad faith use of the disputed domain name that the Panel would expect any legitimate party would seek to refute.
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the requirement of the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
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, <bredemeijers.com>, be transferred to Complainant.
/Gabriel F. Leonardos/
Gabriel F. Leonardos
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2023
0
0
0