Nisshinbo Holdings Inc. v 蔡楚丰 (Cai ChuFeng)

WIPO Case No. D2025-0885

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Nisshinbo Holdings Inc. v. 蔡楚丰 (Cai ChuFeng)

Case No. D2025-0885

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Nisshinbo Holdings Inc., Japan, represented by IP Twins, France.

The Respondent is 蔡楚丰 (Cai ChuFeng), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <jrc-nisshinbo.com> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a

HiChina ( (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March
4, 2025. On March 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 5, 2025, 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 (Unknown Respondent) and contact information in
the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 5, 2025, 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 March 6, 2025.

On March 5, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On March 6, 2025, the Complainant conf irmed 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 amended 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notif ied the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on March 7, 2025. In accordance with the

page 2

Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2025.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes 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
A. Complainant

The Complainant is a Japanese company established in 1907 and operating under the trade mark mechatronics, chemicals, textiles and real estate.

The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the Trade Mark, including International registration

No. 878021, with a registration date of December 10, 2004, designating inter alia China.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is reportedly an individual located in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on June 28, 2024.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to an English language website, impersonating the Complainant’s of ficial website, featuring the Trade Mark and apparently offering for sale the Complainant’s products, and containing an active email address link containing the disputed domain name – “[…]@jrc-nisshinbo.com” (the “Website”). The name and domain name of the Complainant’s subsidiary Nisshinbo Micro Devices Inc. is also reproduced on the Website.

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 contends that the disputed domain name consists of the Trade Mark prefaced by the letters “jrc” - the abbreviation for Japan Radio Co., a subsidiary of the Complainant; and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name illegitimately in respect of the Website, in order to impersonate the Complainant, and to use the active email link therein to engage in unlawful conduct.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. 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 for several reasons, including the fact that the Website is an English language website.

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.

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 Trade Mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other term (here, “jrc”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. In this case, the abbreviation of the name of one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries supports the Panel’s findings under the second element as it adds to the likelihood of confusion that Internet users would associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant, as discussed in more detail below. 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

page 4

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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here, impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel also considers that the composition of the disputed domain name, namely the addition of the other term “jrc” - the abbreviation for Japan Radio Co., a subsidiary of the Complainant, carries a risk of implied af f iliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

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.

The Panel f inds that the use of the Website demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its Trade Mark, for its own commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Further, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

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 <jrc-nisshinbo.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Date: April 14, 2025