Dirk Rossmann GmbH v Huang Wenwu

WIPO Case No. D2024-4457

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Dirk Rossmann GmbH v. Huang Wenwu

Case No. D2024-4457

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dirk Rossmann GmbH, Germany, represented by Horak Rechtsanwälte

Partnerschaft mbB, Germany.

The Respondent is Huang Wenwu, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <babydreamde.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2024. On October 30, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, 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 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 November 14, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 4, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 5, 2024.

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

Complainant is the owner of the International trademark registration No. 1639779, BABYDREAM (logo), registered on June 29, 2021, for goods and services in international classes 03, 05, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 35. Complainant uses its trademark for its baby related products.

The Domain Name was registered on July 30, 2024, and at the time of filing of the Complaint led to a website
(the “Website”) which prominently showed Complainant’s trademark and products. It currently leads to an

inactive website.

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 Domain Name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the

Domain Name:

(i) the 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 Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other term, here, “de”, the country code short for Deutschland (Germany), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

page 3

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the
comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v.
Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; and Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,

WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

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.

Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of
proof always remains on the complainant). 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 available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted

Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name resolved to the Website, which featured authorized partner of Complainant.

Per Complaint, Respondent is not an affiliated entity or an authorised distributor or reseller of Complainant
and no agreement, express or otherwise, exists allowing the use of Complainant’s trademarks on the

Website and the use of the Domain Name by Respondent.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation/passing
off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

page 4

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the BABYDREAM mark had been used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). This also takes into account the content of the Website which mimics that of Complainant and the addition of the country code “de” in the Domain Name, which is the country where Complainant is located.

As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name was
used to resolve to the Website, which prominently displayed Complainant’s registered trademark and
showed its trademarked products, thereby giving the false impression that it was operated by Complainant,
or a company affiliated to Complainant or an authorised partner of Complainant. The Domain Name was
therefore used to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business as
to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website it resolved to. This supports bad faith
registration and use (Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No. D2017-0311; Ebel International
Limited v. Alan Brashear, WIPO Case No. D2017-0001; Walgreen Co. v. Muhammad Azeem / Wang Zheng,
Nicenic International Group Co., Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1607; Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO

Case No. DCO2016-0034; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing
off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the
Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Last, Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the composition of the Domain Name, which includes Complainant’s trademark in its entirety along with the country code of the country where Complainant is located and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third 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 Domain Name <babydreamde.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Marina Perraki/
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: December 24, 2024