Jott Market & Distribution, SAS v 胡燕 (Yan Hu)

WIPO Case No. D2022-3820

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Jott Market & Distribution, SAS v. 胡燕 (Yan Hu)

Case No. D2022-3820

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jott Market & Distribution, SAS, France, represented by Fidal, France.

The Respondent is 胡燕 (Yan Hu), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jottdoudounes.shop> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital

Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on

October 12, 2022. On October 13, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 14, 2022, 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 October 14, 2022, 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 amendment to the Complaint in English on
October 17, 2022.

On October 14, 2022, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On October 17, 2022, the Complainant submitted a 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 amendment to 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 20, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 9, 2022. The Respondent did not submit

any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 10, 2022.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on November 17, 2022. 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

The Complainant, previously called HAIK, SAS, is a company in the business of selling clothing and fashion accessories under the trade marks JOTT and JUST OVER THE TOP. The Complainant is also the registrant of the following domain names: <jott.fr>, <jott.ae>, <jott.co>, < jott.gr>, <jott.mx>, <jott.sg>, <jott.qa>, <jott.paris>, and <jott.pro>.

The Complainant is also the owner of, amongst others, the following trade mark registrations:

Trade Mark	Trade Mark No.	Registration Date	Class	Jurisdiction
4860768	August 26, 2022	3, 9, 14, 16, 18,	France
25, 28, and 35
4860769	August 26, 2022	3, 9, 14, 16, and	France
28

JOTT	14213121	April 28, 2015	25	China
JOTT	1486973	March 22, 2019	18, 25, and 35	International
40464814	May 14, 2020	25	China

page 3

eliminate the overall notion that the designation is connected to the trade mark and the likelihood of

confusion that the disputed domain name and the trade mark are associated;

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is

not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and the Respondent has never been granted any authorization

or license to use the Complainant’s trade mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed

domain name, and has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or

fair use of the disputed domain name; and

(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The website under the

disputed domain name reproduced the Complainant’s trade mark and sells down jackets which is the and for phishing. The Respondent is seeking to confuse the Complainant’s actual or potential customers

and suppliers into believing that the Respondent is the Complainant, or is otherwise associated or affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent is deliberately creating confusion with the Complainant in order to give credibility to its scams and phishing operations.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Preliminary Issue – Language of the Proceeding

According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. There is grounds:

no agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language of the proceeding.
The Respondent did not respond as to the language of the proceeding. The Complainant has filed its

(i)        the Registrar’s website is available in English;

(ii)       the decision of a previous UDRP case in which the same Registrar was involved was rendered in English; and

(iii)      translation of the Complaint and continuation of the proceedings in Chinese would cause extra costs to the Complainant in the proceeding.

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules and taking into consideration paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel hereby determines that the language of the proceeding shall be in English after considering the following circumstances:

- the Center has notified the Respondent of the proceeding in both English and Chinese;

- the Respondent has not commented on the language of the proceeding;

- the Respondent has not filed any response in either English or Chinese; and

page 4

- an order for the translation of the Complaint will result in significant expenses for the Complainant and a

delay in the proceeding.

Further, this Panel decided in Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, WIPO Case No. D2008-1191, that

a respondent’s failure to respond to a preliminary determination by the Center as to the language of the
proceeding “should, in general, be a strong factor to allow the Panel to decide to proceed in favour of the

language of the Complaint”.

6.2 Substantive Issues

The Complainant must satisfy all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed in its action:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has

rights to;

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <jottdoudounes.shop> is confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s trade mark. The disputed domain name reproduces the JOTT trade mark in its entirety along with the word “doudounes”, which means “down jacket” in French. The addition of the word “doudounes” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The gTLD “.shop” is generally disregarded when

considering the first element. (See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected

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

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no business with and is in no way affiliated with the

Complainant. The Respondent is not authorized nor licensed to use the Complainant’s JOTT trade mark or

to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is

commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “Jott”.

Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides:

“While 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 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.”

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark

together with a term describing the Complainant’s key product, carries a risk of an implied affiliation as it

page 5

effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. (See section 2.5.1 of

the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the given evidence, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant has registered the JOTT trade mark. The JOTT trade mark is used by the Complainant to conduct its business and the Complainant has used the

trade mark for its clothing products for over seven years. The use of “doudounes”, the French word for

“down jackets” and the gTLD “.shop” in the disputed domain name is no mere coincidence as the

Complainant sells down jackets, which is the Complainant’s key product. In addition, the website the
disputed domain name resolved to reproduces the Complainant’s website home page including the
Complainant’s trade mark and product images. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the

Complainant and its JOTT trade mark when he or she registered the disputed domain name. It appears to the Panel that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the

Respondent’s website for commercial gain in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Considering the Respondent’s appears to be seeking to imitate the Complainant, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertions that the use of the disputed domain name is possibly for phishing and/or identity

theft, which is a further indication of bad faith.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the third element under paragraph 4(a) 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, <jottdoudounes.shop>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Douglas Clark/

Douglas Clark

Sole Panelist
Date: November 30, 2022

The disputed domain name <jottdoudounes.shop> was registered on October 7, 2022. At the date the

Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name resolved to a website which reproduced the look and feel of

the Complainant’s website at “ including featuring the Complainant’s trade marks

and products images. At the date of this decision, it resolved to an inactive webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that:

(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trade mark JOTT. The disputed domain name is

almost identical to the Complainant’s JOTT trade mark along with the addition of the French word

“doudounes” which translates into “down jackets” in English. The Complainant’s main product line is down

jackets. The use of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” in the disputed domain name does not