Groupe Courir v Yifeng Zeng

WIPO Case No. D2024-0086

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Groupe Courir v. Yifeng Zeng

Case No. D2024-0086

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Groupe Courir, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Yifeng Zeng, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <soldescourir.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 January 10, 2024. On January 11, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 12, 2024, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 15, 2024, 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 January 15, 2024.

On January 15, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On the same day, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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 of the
Complaint by email, and the proceeding commenced on January 22, 2024. Written Notice of the
Commencement of Administrative Proceedings has also been sent by courier (the “Written Notice”). In

page 2

accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2024. The
Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on

February 12, 2024.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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.

4. Factual Background

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a French corporation and a leading retailer of sports footwear, clothing and accessories
in France under the trade mark COURIR (the “Trade Mark”), operating also via several websites, including

“

The Complainant is the owner of several registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including

International registration No. 941035, with a registration date of September 25, 2007.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is located in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on January 3, 2024.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to a French language website which offers for sale discounted sports footwear, clothing and accessories (the “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 disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Language of the Proceeding

.

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is ChinesePursuant to the in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the

page 3

registration agreement.

.

The Complaint was filed in EnglishThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be impose a significant costs burden on the Complainant if the language of the proceeding were to be Chinese.

The Respondent did not file any response in this proceeding and did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. The disputed domain name does not resolve to a website in Chinese.

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

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.

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 the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark 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 disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed 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 terms (here, “soldes”, meaning “discount” in French) 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 disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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.

page 4

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, in order to offer for sale discounted sports footwear, clothing and accessories, in direct competition with the business conducted by the Complainant for many years under the Trade Mark.

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.

The Panel notes the Written Notice was not delivered as the Respondent has used a fake address to register the disputed domain name. In addition, the Panel notes that the section of “À propos de nous” at the disputed domain name contains a reference to home improvement, which is not related to the goods displayed on the Website.

The Website also contains a similar colour theme as the Complainant's website, in particular using orange as part of the logo. In light of the manner of use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that bad faith has been made out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of 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 disputed domain name <soldescourir.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Date: March 4, 2024