Julius Blum GmbH v Nguyen Nam Ha

WIPO Case No. D2025-0704

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Julius Blum GmbH v. NGUYEN NAM HA

Case No. D2025-0704

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Julius Blum GmbH, Austria, represented by Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte GmbH &

Co KG, Austria.

The Respondent is NGUYEN NAM HA, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <blumvn.com> is registered with iNET Corporation (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif fered f rom the named Respondent (Domain Admin, C/O ID#10760, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 24, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on February 26, 2025.

On February 24, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Vietnamese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Vietnamese. On February 26, 2025, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on March 27, 2025.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 is an Austrian company founded in the year 1952. It is presently one of the largest manufacturers of furniture f ittings in the world.

The Complainant is the owner of dozens of trademark registrations for BLUM around the world (Annexes 4-7 to the Complaint), amongst which:

- International trademark registration no. 996626 for the word mark BLUM, registered on November 18, 2008, successively renewed, in classes 6, 9, 11 and 20;

- International trademark registration no. 598611 for the word mark BLUM, registered on February 16,1993, successively renewed, in classes 6, 7, 20 and 26; and

- International trademark registration no. 1171363 for the word and device mark BLUM, registered on April 29, 2013, successively renewed, in classes 6, 7, 9 and 20.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 17, 2024 and resolves to an active webpage in

Vietnamese of fering kitchen appliances, furniture and furniture f ittings.

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.

Notably, the Complainant asserts that its products have well-thought-out functions, award-winning design and a long life and that by virtue of the Complainant’s longstanding use, widespread advertising and successful sales the trademark BLUM has become well-recognized and famous in Viet Nam.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces entirely the Complainant’s BLUM trademark, with the addition of the geographical suffix “vn”, what does not eliminate a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, as recognized by past panels.

Furthermore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with the sale and advertisement of hardware products and other accessory articles for furniture, in particular furniture f ittings which are precisely the Complainant’s core products, there being undoubtful likelihood of confusion.

Regarding the absence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant argues that:

i. the Complainant has never licensed or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use its BLUM trademark as a domain name; and

page 3

ii. by using the disputed domain name in connection with the of fer of the competing products f rom competitors of the Complainant, the Respondent is improperly confusing consumers into believing that they have reached the Complainant’s website for Viet Nam or creating a false impression that the Respondent is associated or af f iliated with the Complainant.

Lastly, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being using in bad faith and with the fraudulent intent to lure Internet users into the belief that the Respondent is, or is af f iliated with, the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Procedural Matter – Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Vietnamese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specif ied otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English given that the Respondent is familiar with the English language given that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage which prominently uses it, such as in the title of the website, as well as in sections named “Hotline”, “Please Insert your Email Address”, “Subscribe”, “Sale”, etc. Furthermore, as the

Complainant is an international company it is also familiar with English as well and translating the Complaint in any language other than English would result in additional expenses and unnecessary delay for the Complainant, also not causing any harm to the Respondent.

The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.

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.

6.2. Substantive matter

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:

(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 The Complainants must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 4

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst 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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The 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 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 “vn” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds 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 f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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 satisf ied the second element.

In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, the Complainant has made a prima facie case against the Respondent who has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither authorized, licensed, or been allowed to use the Complainants’ trademark, whether in the disputed domain name, or in any other way.

Also, the lack of evidence as to any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name, corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Moreover, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the offer of competing products at the website available at the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances.

Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.

The Panel f inds 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.

page 5

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.

This case presents the following circumstances which indicate under the balance of probabilities bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name:

a) the composition of the disputed domain name reproducing the Complainant’s trademark (previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4);

b) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it

of the disputed domain name; and

c) the Respondent used the disputed domain name to of fer competing goods.

The Panel f inds 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 <blumvn.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/
Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2025