Cybernet Entertainment LLC v Jie Li

WIPO Case No. D2023-0125

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Cybernet Entertainment LLC v. Jie Li

Case No. D2023-0125

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Cybernet Entertainment LLC, United States of America (United States), represented by

Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener, United States.

The Respondent is Jie Li, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kink-stores.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 January 10, 2023.
On January 11, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 17, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the

Center its verification response confirming that:

(a)	the disputed domain name is registered with it;
(b)	the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details; and
(c)	the language of the registration agreement is English.

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 January 17, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2023.

The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on February 24, 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 company incorporated in the United States.

It is the owner of a trademark for K KINK STORE (with the first “K” in a stylized form) in the United States registered in the Principal Register, No. 6,056,470:

According to the description of the mark included in the registration, the “grey” in the mark represents transparent areas and is not part of the mark.

This trademark has been registered since May 19, 2020 in respect of “Online retail store services and retail store services in the fields of adult entertainment and human sexuality products, namely, products of an erotic, sensual or sexual nature” in International Class 35.

The registration claims first use in commerce occurred on January 1, 2012.

Although not mentioned in the Complaint, the domain name <kinkstore.com> resolves to a website which
features the trademark (although the word “store” is arranged underneath “kink”, not alongside it). The
About Us page of the website describes the Kink Store as the official store of Kink.com.

The website to which <kink.com> resolves also bears the trademark but without the word “store”. In particular, both websites feature the “k” device depicted in the registered trademark. The website itself features thousands of movies and images related to BDSM activities.

According to the WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was registered on August 16, 2022.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that appears to offer for sale BDSM equipment and accessories, many of them at heavily discounted prices. For example, the first four items claim to have list prices between USD 523 and USD 595 discounted to USD 91.99 to USD 95.99. The website features prominently at the top of the landing page the trademark in the same format as represented on the website to which <kinkstore.com> resolves. The website is in English.

5. Discussion and Findings

No response has been filed. The Complaint and Written Notice have been sent, however, to the Respondent at the electronic and physical coordinates confirmed as correct by the Registrar in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Bearing in mind the duty of the holder of a domain name to provide and keep up to date correct WhoIs details, therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to present his or its case.

When a respondent has defaulted, paragraph 14(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to proceed to a decision on the Complaint in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide the dispute on the basis of the statements and documents that have been submitted and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

page 3

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the 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.

In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the language of the proceeding is English.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.

There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark at the date the Complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.

The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademark K KINK STORE (with the first “K” in a stylized form) and device identified in section 4 above.

The second stage of this inquiry simply requires a visual and aural comparison of the disputed domain name to the proven trademarks. This test is narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trademark law. Therefore, questions such as the scope of the trademark rights, the geographical location of the respective parties and other considerations that may be relevant to an assessment of infringement under trademark law are not relevant at this stage. Such matters, if relevant, may fall for consideration under the other elements of the Policy. See e.g. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), section 1.7.

In undertaking that comparison, it is permissible in the present circumstances to disregard the generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) component as a functional aspect of the domain name system. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

It is also usual to disregard the design elements of a trademark under the first element as such elements are generally incapable of representation in a domain name. Where the textual elements have been disclaimed in the registration or cannot fairly be described as an essential or important element of the trademark,

however, different considerations may arise. See for example, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.10.

Disregarding the “.com” gTLD and the device element, the disputed domain name consists of the verbal component of the Complainant’s registered trademark with the two words separated by a hyphen. The substitution in a domain name of a hyphen for a space is a conventional usage and can be regarded as trivial. An essential component of the Complainant’s trademark therefore remains visually and aurally

recognisable within the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can be situations in which the
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

page 4

(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

(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 trademark 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 trademark or service mark at issue.

These are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.

The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant. Panels have recognized the difficulties inherent in proving a negative, however, especially in circumstances where much of the relevant information is in, or likely to be in, the possession of the respondent. Accordingly, it is usually sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this head and an evidential burden will shift to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case. The ultimate burden of proof, however, remains with the Complainant. See e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant began using its trademark and also after the Complainant had registered its trademark.

The disputed domain name is not derived from the Respondent’s name. Nor is there any suggestion of some other name by which the Respondent is commonly known from which the disputed domain name could be derived. From the available record, the Respondent does not appear to hold any trademarks for the disputed domain name.

The Complainant states that it has not authorised the Respondent to use the disputed domain name. Nor is the Respondent affiliated with it.

In such circumstances, the use of a disputed domain name which is at least confusingly similar to the paragraph 4(c)(i). On the contrary, it appears that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant’s trademark.

Complainant’s trademark in connection with the offering for sale of products within the scope of the

Such commercial use, assuming that the goods in question are in fact being offered for sale from the paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

These matters, taken together, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the Policy that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The basis on which the
Respondent has adopted the disputed domain name, therefore, calls for explanation or justification. The
Respondent, however, has not sought to rebut that prima facie case or advance any claimed entitlement.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has established the second requirement under the Policy also.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. These are conjunctive requirements; both must be satisfied for a successful complaint: see e.g. Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v. Banta Global Turnkey Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2010-0470.

page 5

Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.

The close resemblance of the trademark appearing on the landing page of the Respondent’s website to the trademark.

In these circumstances, as explained in section 5B above, it appears clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and is using it, to target the Complainant’s trademark. In circumstances where the Respondent has not sought to claim, let alone establish, that he or she has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, therefore, the Panel finds the Respondent has registered and is using the

disputed domain name in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Complainant has established all three requirements under the Policy.

6. 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, <kink-stores.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Warwick A. Rothnie/
Warwick A. Rothnie
Sole Panelist
Date: March 10, 2023