Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v 曹伟 (Wei Cao)

WIPO Case No. D2022-2388

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. 曹伟 (Wei Cao)

Case No. D2022-2388

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Deloitte LLP,

United Kingdom.

The Respondent is 曹伟 (Wei Cao), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <travelex.online> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital

Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2022. On June 30, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 1, 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.

On July 1, 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 July 6, 2022.

The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 11, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 31, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 1, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on August 4, 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, Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited, is a leading player in the foreign exchange business industry.

The Complainant currently operates across 60 countries and has an extensive global portfolio of trade marks containing the term “travelex”, including the following:

- International Trade Mark Registration for TRAVELEX No. 1014563 in Classes 9, 35, and 36 extended to China, registered on July 30, 2009;

- International Trade Mark Registration for TRAVELEX No. 868046 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 39 extended to China, registered on February 15, 2005; and

- United States of America Trade Mark registration for TRAVELEX No. 1694803 in Class 36, registered

on June 16, 1992.

The Complainant and its related entities also own the domain names <travelex.com>, <travelex.co.uk>, and

<travelex-corporate.com>, amongst others.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 17, 2020.

Screenshots provided by the Complainant indicate that, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page offering to sell the disputed domain name for USD 3,399.

At the time of drafting of this Decision, the disputed domain name continued to resolve to the same page offering to sell the domain for the same amount.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the TRAVELEX trade marks and that it is a leading player in its fields of business.

The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s TRAVELEX trade marks.

The Complainant also asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the TRAVELEX mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any connection to the TRAVELEX mark in any way, and that there is no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name, especially after considering the relevant circumstances. The Complainant therefore concludes that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name whatsoever must be in bad faith.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Language of the Proceeding

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules:

“[…] the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement,
subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the
administrative proceeding.”

In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Hence, the default language of the proceeding should in principle be Chinese.

However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, asserting inter alia that:

- The parking page of the disputed domain name is entirely in English; and

- The Complainant will be disproportionately prejudiced if the proceeding is conducted in Chinese as it
will incur substantial expenses and delays for translation of documents.

The Respondent was notified in both Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding and the
Complaint, and the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding or submit any response.

After considering the relevant circumstances, the Panel determined that the language of the proceeding shall be English, and the Panel has issued this decision in English. The Panel further finds that such determination would not cause any prejudice to either Party and would ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the TRAVELEX trade marks in many jurisdictions around the world.

Disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.online”, the disputed domain name incorporates the

Complainant’s trade mark TRAVELEX in its entirety.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made out, the respondent bears the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate

interest in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to
have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.

page 4

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade marks and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Thus, the Complainant has established its prima facie case with satisfactory evidence.

The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.

Therefore, there is no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent, prior to the notice of the dispute, has used or has demonstrated its preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is also no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, and based on the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the

purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the
owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in
excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trade mark 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)      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the

purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to

attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the
respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trade mark of another party. See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG, WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.

For reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the TRAVELEX trade marks were already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or

page 5

widely known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Given the extensive prior use and fame of the Complainant’s marks, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has provided no evidence to justify its choice of the term “travelex” in the disputed domain name. In light of the foregoing, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Respondent – at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name – was unaware of the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Complainant’s registered trade mark rights in TRAVELEX for its products and services predate the
registration date of the disputed domain name by almost three decades. A simple online search (e.g., via
Google and Baidu) for the term “travelex” would have revealed that it is a world-renowned brand.

The Panel is therefore of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant (or a competitor of the Complainant) for valuable consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. This conclusion is based on the fact that the Respondent’s parking page offered to sell the disputed domain name for USD 3,399 (plus fees). In the circumstances of this case, noting the composition of the disputed domain name and its use of a parking page and offer to sell the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take unfair advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by the Complainant.

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 <travelex.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Joseph Simone/
Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: August 16, 2022