CallRevu, LLC v heng zong he

WIPO Case No. D2023-2404

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CallRevu, LLC v. heng zong he

Case No. D2023-2404

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CallRevu, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Nelson

Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States.

The Respondent is heng zong he, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <click2callvision.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 2, 2023. On June 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 6, 2023, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 7, 2023, 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 June 9, 2023.

On June 7, 2023, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On June 9, 2023, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the

proceeding.

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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on June 14, 2023. In accordance with the

page 2

Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 4, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 5, 2023.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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.

4. Factual Background
A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company incorporated in the State of Delaware in the United States in 2008, and a provider since 2019 of software used for tracking, analysing and reporting inbound calls, chats and web forms under the trade mark CALLVISION (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant is the owner of United States registration No. 6637919 for the Trade Mark, with a registration date of February 8, 2022.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is located in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on March 21, 2023.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to a Chinese language website with multiple links to gambling and pornography related websites (the “Website”).

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been 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, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. However, paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the panel to determine the language

page 3

of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take
paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the
proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious
avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens
being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

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

The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.

The Respondent did not make any submissions regarding the language of the proceeding, and did not file any response.

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.

Although there is insufficient evidence before the Panel to support a conclusion that the Respondent is conversant in English, the Panel notes that the Respondent has taken no part in this proceeding, and all of the Center’s communications with the Parties have been sent in English and Chinese.

The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.

In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore finds it is not foreseeable that the Respondent would be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.

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 Elements of the Policy

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.7), prefaced by the word “click” and the number “2” (a homonym for “click to”).

Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms
(whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of

confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i)        before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

page 4

(ii)       the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii)      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name is resolved, for commercial gain, to the

Website, containing links to pornography and gambling related websites.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the distinctiveness of the Trade Mark and the manner of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name referred to above; the Panel finds, in all the circumstances, that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <click2callvision.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2023