Le Duff Industries v ZuoChun DUAN

WIPO Case No. D2024-5113

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Le Duff Industries v. ZuoChun DUAN

Case No. D2024-5113

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Le Duff Industries, France, represented by Scan Avocats AARPI, France.

The Respondent is ZuoChun DUAN, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bridor.asia> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2024. On December 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 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 / Private Registration, Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 13, 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 on December 17, 2024.

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, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 13, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Debrett G. Lyons as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2025. 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 factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

(1) the Complainant is a French company which uses the trademark BRIDOR in respect of its bakery

manufacturing and bread production businesses;

(2) the Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, International trademark registration No. 524007, registered on

June 27, 1988, for the trademark, BRIDOR;

(3) the disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2024, using a privacy service to shield the name of

the Respondent;

(4) the disputed domain name has resolved to a parking page with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links named
“emballage alimentaire” (food packaging), “boulangerie pâtisserie” (bakery and pastry), and “entreprise

emballage” (packaging company); and

(5) there is no relationship between the Parties and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to

use its trademark or register any domain name incorporating that mark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts trademark rights in BRIDOR. It holds national and pan-national registrations for that trademark and submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has no trademark rights; it is not known by the disputed domain name; and use of the disputed domain name has not been bona fide since it has resolved to a website with links to potentially competitive providers of the same or similar goods and services.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith being aware of the Complainant and its trademark.

The Complainant accordingly requests the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit a Response.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

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

page 3

(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.

It is the responsibility of the Panel to consider whether the requirements of the Policy have been met, regardless of the fact that the Respondent failed to submit a response. Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is accepted that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy.1 The Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights in BRIDOR since it provides proof of registration of that word mark with the French Patent and Trademark Office, a national authority.

For the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the trademark, the sponsored Top-Level the trademark and so finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the Complainant may first make out a prima facie case, after which the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by

providing evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.3

Notwithstanding the lack of a response to the Complaint, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain
name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or

services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,

even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are 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.”

1See section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

2See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

3See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624.

page 4

The Respondent’s name does not suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the Panel finds no other evidence that the Respondent might be known by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant states that there is no association between the Parties and the

Panel finds that there is nothing to contradict that claim. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark rights.

The disputed domain name at one point resolved to a parking page with PPC links as described above,
being goods and services competitive to those provided by the Complainant under its trademark. Countless
decisions under the Policy have held that such use does not give rise to either rights or legitimate interests in
a domain name corresponding with another’s trademark.4

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case. In failing to reply to the Complainant’s contentions the Respondent has not rebutted that case.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and so finds the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances, which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. They are:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such

conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or
service on your website or location.”

The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name is caught by paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be identical to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Confusion is thus inevitable and the Panel considers it evident that Respondent knew of the Complainant

and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

Further, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name has been for commercial gain, most likely by way of PPC revenue. In terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name intending to attract Internet users to its webpage or online location for commercial gain by causing a likelihood of confusion as to the source or endorsement of that webpage or location.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

4See section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

page 5

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 <bridor.asia> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Debrett G. Lyons/
Debrett G. Lyons
Sole Panelist
Date: January 31, 2025