MBK Real Estate LLC v 杨智超 (yang zhi chao)

WIPO Case No. D2022-3091

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

MBK Real Estate LLC v. 杨智超 (yang zhi chao)

Case No. D2022-3091

1. The Parties

The Complainant is MBK Real Estate LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, United States.

The Respondent is 杨智超 (yang zhi chao), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mbkseniorlivin.com> is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 19, 2022. On August 22, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 23, 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 August 24, 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 amended Complaint in English on August 24, 2022.

On August 24, 2022, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language
of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on August

24, 2022. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 30, 2022. In accordance with the

page 2

Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 20, 2022.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company headquartered in the State of California in the United States and a provider in the United States since 2004 of aged care and senior living services and accommodation under the trade mark MBK SENIOR LIVING (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complaint promotes its senior living services and accommodation provided under the Trade Mark via its website at “

B. Respondent

The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on May 3, 2022.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to an English language parking page with sponsored links relating to senior living (the “Website”).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the

page 3

Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the Parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burden being placed on the Parties and undue delay to the proceeding (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:

(i) the Complainant is an American company with an English language Trade Mark, and generally aims its business to those speaking English in the United States;

(ii)     the Website is an English language website; and

(iii) the Respondent is sufficiently capable of responding in English, and has shown to understand the English language due to its activities and the use of the Website.

The Respondent did not file a response and did not file any 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.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to the Website which contains sponsored links in English; the Respondent has not taken any part in this proceeding; and the relevant case related communications were sent in both English and Chinese. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.

In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore finds it is not foreseeable that the Respondent would be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.

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 Elements of the Policy

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use. The Panel notes in this regard that the Complainant’s domain name <mbkseniorliving.com> was registered in 2004, and there are Wayback Machine archives in respect of the Complainant’s use of its disputed domain name dating to 2005.

The disputed domain name consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Trade Mark – by omitting the final letter “g” of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9).

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i)           before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable

preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed 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 the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii)         the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name,

without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service
mark at issue.

The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden

is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name consists of a typo of the Complainant’s Trade

Mark and domain name, and has been resolved to a parking page with sponsored links relating to senior living – the services provided by the Complainant since 2004 under the Trade Mark.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the reputation of the Complainant and its prior use of the Trade Mark in the senior living field; the uniqueness of the Trade Mark; the typo composition of the disputed domain name; and the manner of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name referred to above; the Panel finds, in all the circumstances, that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The evidence suggests that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant in registering and using the disputed domain name; and that there cannot be any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <mbkseniorlivin.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 6, 2022