Korda Developments Limited v Yumei Ren

WIPO Case No. D2022-3730

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Korda Developments Limited v. Yumei Ren

Case No. D2022-3730

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Korda Developments Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Birkett Long LLP, United

Kingdom.

The Respondent is Yumei Ren, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kordatackleus.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 October 6, 2022. connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 2022, 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 October 10, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was October 30, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 31, 2022.

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a British company in the fishing and tackle business.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations around the world, among others, the following:

Trademark	No. Registration	Jurisdiction	Date of Registration
KORDA	3526413	United Kingdom	December 11, 2020
KORDA	1574117	International Registration	October 27, 2020
KORDA	018335735	European Union	March 3, 2021
KORDA	302020218027	Germany	June 25, 2020
KORDA THINKING TACKLE	2299685	United Kingdom	October 11, 2002
KORDA THINKING TACKLE	2375353	United Kingdom	March 25, 2005

page 3

That the Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name and website associated thereto, which features the Complainant’s trademark registrations and offers infringing goods for commercial gain in order to misleadingly divert consumers and to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks.

That the Respondent effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant.

That the Respondent pretends to create an inherent affiliation between the Complainant and the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, since such website features fishing accessories and tackle, just like the Complainant’s official website. That, therefore, Internet users would immediately

believe that said website is operated by the Complainant.

That it is unclear whether the Respondent is offering genuine goods since the Respondent is not operating in a reseller or distributor capacity. That such products are unauthorized by the Complainant.

That the Respondent has not disclosed its relationship with the Complainant, pursuant the Oki Data
requirements. See section 2.8 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third

Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0).

III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

That, based on the use of the disputed domain name, it is clear that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

That it is no coincidence that the Respondent is using the KORDA trademark to offer the same goods and services as the Complainant.

That, considering that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks, it is apparent that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. That, therefore, the registration of said disputed domain name was specifically made to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation, in order to reap financial gains from the consumer recognition attached to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainants 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Given the Respondent’s failure to submit a formal Response, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations, in accordance with paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No. D2006-0292).

page 4

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark KORDA, as it incorporates said trademark entirely, with the addition of the term “tackle”, and the ISO-3166 code for the United States of America (“United States”), “us”, (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System. Therefore, it has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.CO, WIPO Case No. D2020-0268, and Société Air

France v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Carolina Rodrigues WIPO

Case No. D2019-0578).

In light of the above, the first element of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets forth the following examples as circumstances where a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable
preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the 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 it did not acquire trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant has proven to be the owner of several registrations for the KORDA trademark in different jurisdictions.

The Complainant has made a prima facie case asserting that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves seems to be an online store, through which fishing accessories and tackle are being sold. Therefore, and considering that the disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KORDA, plus the term “tackle”, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation since Internet users may think that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is the Complainant’s official website or is otherwise affiliated to or sponsored by the Complainant (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, see also Euro Sko Norge AS v. Whoisguard Inc. / Shier Dede, Shier Dede, WIPO Case No. D2020-0194, Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Raman Shuk, WIPO Case No. D2020-1469, Biofarma v. Dawn Mason, WIPO Case No. D2019-1952).

Furthermore, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves predominantly displays the Complainant’s KORDA trademark, and reproduces images of the Complainant’s official products which copyrights, according to the Complainant, belong to the said Complainant. Moreover, the copyright notice displayed on said website

represents that the Respondent is the rights holder of said images. This shows that the Respondent has
attempted to impersonate the Complainant. A finding of impersonation prevents a determination of a bona
fide offering of goods (see sections 2.5.1, and 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Self-Portrait IP
Limited v. Franklin Kelly, WIPO Case No. D2019-0283).

page 5

The facts of this case do not pass the Oki Data test. The Complainant has asserted that it is unclear
whether the products offered through the website to which the disputed domain name resolves are genuine.
Said website does not display a disclaimer stating that it is not related to the Complainant (see section 2.8.1
of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903;
see additionally Phiip Morris S.A. v. bprapan bpaetaa, WIPO Case No. D2020-3372, Phiip Morris S.A. v.
Rohan mubbahir Kahn, WIPO Case No. D2021-1314, and Prime Hydration, LLC v. Registration Private,
Domains By Proxy, LLC / Amman Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2022-1918: “Certain geographic terms (e.g.,
<trademark-usa.com>, or <trademark.nyc>), or terms with an “inherent Internet connotation” (e.g.,
<e-trademark.com>, <buy-trademark.com>, or <trademark.online>) are seen as tending to suggest

sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner”).

The website to which the disputed domain name resolves predominantly displays the Complainant’s
trademarks including their logos, and images of the Complainant’s official products that seem to have been
reproduced from the Complainant’s site. Moreover, said website displays copyright notices claiming rights to
the Complainant’s images. This shows that the Respondent has attempted to impersonate the Complainant.
In addition, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name (with added terms such as
“tackle”, and the ISO-3166 code for the United States, “us”,) carries a risk of implied affiliation since Internet
users may think that the website to which this disputed domain name resolves belongs to an official or
endorsed distributor or dealer of the Complainant in said territory (see sections 2.5.1, and 2.13.1 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0.).

Additionally, the Complainant has asserted that it is unclear from the website at the disputed domain name if the goods on offer are genuine goods of the Complainant. If that is case, the consensus view among panels appointed under the Policy is that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as the sale of

counterfeits, impersonation, or passing off, cannot confer rights to, or legitimate interests in a domain name
(see section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, see also Richemont International SA v. brandon gill, WIPO

Case No. D2013-0037).

Therefore, the second element of the Policy has been fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Bad faith under the Policy is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily
for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant
who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable

consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged

in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

page 6

Considering that KORDA is a fanciful trademark that does not correspond to a dictionary word, it is safe to infer that said trademark is highly distinctive.

The fact that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name, which resolves to a website that
offers the same products that the Complainant sells, and which displays unauthorized reproductions of
images which belong to the Complainant, suggests that the Respondent knew the Complainant, its
trademarks, and its business when registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has
targeted the Complainant (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Self-Portrait IP Limited v.
Franklin Kelly, supra (“According to Complainant, this reproduction of Complainant’s copyright material was
unauthorized, and therefore, illegitimate. It is clear that this use of the Disputed Domain Name is an attempt
to impersonate Complainant.”), Jupiter Investment Management Group Limited v. N/A, Robert Johnson,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0260 (“The Complainant claims that the Respondent has infringed its copyright.
That seems probable. However, the Panel is unconvinced that copyright infringement per se necessarily
leads to a finding of bad faith. In cases where there is full scale reproduction of another’s site there may well
be both copyright infringement and bad faith but it is the unauthorized (sic.), unjustified and wholesale
impersonation that justifies the bad faith finding.”), L’Oréal v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0149511181 /
Jerry Peter, WIPO Case No. D2018-1937; Gilead Sciences Ireland UC / Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domain
Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2019-0980; and Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1747).

These facts also show that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating the impression among Internet users that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is related to, associated with, or endorsed by the Complainant, which conduct constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain, which also constitutes bad faith under the Policy (see 1IQ PTY LTD v. 1337 Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-2156 (“It follows from this and the conclusions as to impersonation so far as rights and legitimate interests is concerned, that the Domain Name was also both registered and used in order to unfairly impersonate the Complainant and its mark and therefore in bad faith”)).

Therefore, the third element of the Policy has been met.

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 <kordatackleus.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kiyoshi Tsuru/
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: November 17, 2022

The Complainant owns the domain name <korda.co.uk>, where the Complainant has continuously used the
KORDA trademark since at least 2004.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <kordatackleus.com> on March 4, 2022, and it resolves to a website that operates an online fishing store.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar

That the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks entirely and that, therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.

That the disputed domain name incorporates the term “tackle”, plus the geographic abbreviation “us”.

That the Respondent infringes the Complainant’s copyrights by reproducing the Complainant’s protected works on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.

That, in addition to the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent is selling identical goods to the ones being sold by the Complainant. That, moreover, the goods being sold by the Respondent bear the Complainant’s trademark, without authorization from the Complainant.

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

That the Respondent has no trademark registrations for KORDA.

That the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not connected to a bone fide offering of goods and services.