Reebok International Limited v Bing Yue

WIPO Case No. D2022-2855

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Reebok International Limited v. Bing Yue

Case No. D2022-2855

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Reebok International Limited c/o Authentic Brands Group, United States of America (“United

States”).

The Respondent is Bing Yue, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <reebokclassic-shop.com> (the “Domain Name”), 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 August 2, 2022. On August 3, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 4, 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 August 11, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 31, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center

notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 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

The Complainant is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom with its registered office in
London, England, which has for many decades manufactured and marketed sportswear under the brand name
“Reebok”.

The name “Reebok” is protected by numerous trade mark registrations around the world including United States Trademark Registration No. 1133704 REEBOK (typed drawing) registered on April 22, 1980 (application filed on November 25, 1977) in class 25 for “shoes for use in athletic sports.”

The Complainant also uses a complex distinctive logo which is the subject of many trade mark registrations including United States Trademark Registration No. 1848848 registered on August 9, 1994 (application filed on October 21, 1992) for a variety of goods in classes 18 and 25.

Another United States registration of a similar figurative mark bears the following description: “The mark consists of a stylized design of two quadrilaterals with curved sides below and to the left of a triangle with a curved side which is below and to the left of another triangle with curved sides”.

The Domain Name was registered on May 17, 2022 and is connected to a website offering for sale what appear to be the Complainant’s products on offer at a substantial discount. The Complainant’s REEBOK and logo trade marks feature prominently at the top of the home page and at the foot of the page is a copyright notice reading

“Copyright 2022 ©

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s REEBOK registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The essence of the Complainant’s case is that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to connect to a website selling counterfeit REEBOK goods, a website making liberal use of the Complainant’s trade marks, the REEBOK word mark and the logo, both of which are protected by trade mark registrations such as those described in section 4.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Preliminary Point

This case was filed on the same day as Reebok International Limited v. Ping Huang, WIPO Case No. D2022-2852 (“Ping Huang”), a case in which this Panel has issued a decision directing transfer of the Domain Name on the basis that the disputed domain name in that case (<reebokmarches.com>) had been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel declined to find that the Respondent’s website was offering counterfeit REEBOK products, because there was nothing in the complaint in that case, beyond an assertion and discounted prices, to support any such claim.

In substance, the Complaint in this case is very similar to the complaint in Ping Huang. The following passage from the decision in Ping Huang is directly applicable to this case:

“The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions, but that does not mean that the
Complaint automatically succeeds. The burden of proof still rests with the Complainant. Where a complaint is
wholly based on unsupported and conclusory allegations the complaint will fail. However, a panel may draw
inferences adverse to the respondent in the absence of a response where the circumstances of the case merit it.
The issue is dealt with in greater detail in section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected

UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Complainant has asserted in section B.ii. of the Complaint that “[…] Respondent has been actively using the illegitimate commercial gains, more specifically, by operating a fake REEBOK website offering counterfeit REEBOK goods”. The evidence in support is a screenshot of the Respondent’s website showing prominent use of the Complainant’s logo at top left and numerous images of what appear to be the Complainant’s REEBOCK products on offer at substantial discounts. [In this case the Respondent’s website featured the Complainant’s REEBOK trade mark and the logo at centre top of the homepage.]

Ordinarily, when complainants assert that the products the respondent is selling are counterfeit, some effort is made to assist the panel to make the desired finding. It could be the result of a trap order, or a close analysis of the photographed products featured on the website, or complaints from customers, or even, perhaps, a failure to respond to a cease and desist letter. Here, however, the Panel has nothing to go on apart from the Complainant’s bare assertion and the discounted prices.

Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Zhiyuan Zou, Zouzhi Zhou, Fujian AnfuD2012-0888

In , WIPO Case No. , a case involving circumstance (other than the discounted prices) pointing to the likelihood that the goods were counterfeit, namely that several of the websites and one of the domain names in issue made express reference to the fact that the products were replica products.

It may of course be that the level of the discounted prices is sufficient to indicate that the products are counterfeit, but the Complainant has not provided any explanation and in the absence of an explanation the Panel is not prepared to assume that the Respondent is offering counterfeit REEBOK products through his website. It may also be that the Panel’s investigation into some of the links at the foot of the homepage (see below) might have assisted the Complainant’s case, but this was not something that the Complainant thought worth pursuing.”

In consequence, the Panel decided Ping Huang on the basis that the goods on the Respondent’s website were genuine goods of the Complainant.

page 4

The Panel’s investigation into links at the bottom of the Respondent’s homepage in Ping Huang revealed some oddities for a domain name owner named Ping Huang resident in China. For example, the “Termes et conditions” (“terms and conditions”) link identified the owner of the website as a company operating under a different name and the “Nous contacter” (“contact us”) link revealed an address in the United States. However, in the absence of any argument on the point in the complaint, there was nothing to enable the Panel to conclude that the Complainant’s goods sold on the website were counterfeit. The mere fact that a website is dressed up to look like a website associated with the complainant may indicate no more than that the respondent is improperly seeking to boost sales of genuine goods, not necessarily counterfeit goods.

In this case, again, surprisingly the Complainant has undertaken no detailed investigation of the Respondent’s
website. However, the Panel’s investigation into the links at the foot of the Respondent’s homepage reveal that
(a) the website in this case and Ping Huang are almost certainly associated (the “Term and Conditions” link and
the “Contact Us” link are, apart from the names and addresses, almost identical in style and content), and
significantly, (b) the “Contact Us” link in the Respondent’s website discloses a blatantly false address in the
United Kingdom. There can be no justifiable reason for providing customers with a false contact address.
Counterfeiters understandably wish to remain anonymous and uncontactable.

Accordingly, in this case (unlike Ping Huang) the Panel has an additional reason to believe that on the balance of probabilities the Complainant’s bald assertion that the Respondent’s products are counterfeit is well-founded.

B. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the
Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i)        the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

C. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s REEBOK trade mark followed by the dictionary word “classic”, a hyphen, then the dictionary word “shop” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain identifier.

Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage:

“While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a
trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the
domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”

The Complainant’s REEBOK trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

D. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant recites the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of which if found by the
Panel to be present shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of this element of the Policy,

page 5

and contends that none of them is applicable.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that it has not authorized the Respondent’s use of the REEBOK trade mark in this or any other way and finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy calling for an answer from the Respondent.

The Respondent has not provided an answer. Taking the lack of a response from the Respondent together with the finding in section 6.A that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent’s website is indeed marketing counterfeit REEBOK products as asserted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The use of a domain name to market counterfeit products can never give rise to rights or legitimate interests for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Even if, contrary to the Panel’s finding above, the Respondent’s products are not counterfeit, nonetheless the very nature of the Domain Name (featuring as it does the Complainant’s primary trade mark alongside words appropriate to an authorised retailer of the Complainant’s products) provides a further reason for questioning whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (see section 2.5.1

of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is satisfied on the evidence that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which he is using it, namely to attract visitors to his website looking for REEBOK products and then to supply them with counterfeit products. If his customers wish to make contact, all that they have available to them is a

false address, rendering the Respondent uncontactable.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Name, <reebokclassic-shop.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tony Willoughby/
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2022