吴清儒 (Wu Qing Ru)

WIPO Case No. D2024-2702

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

EPSE Joueclub Entente des Professionnels Specialistes de l’Enfant v.

吴清儒 (Wu Qing Ru)

Case No. D2024-2702

1. The Parties

The Complainant is EPSE Joueclub Entente des Professionnels Specialistes de l’Enfant, France,

represented by CMC Avocats, France.

The Respondent is 吴清儒 (Wu Qing Ru), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <joueclub.xyz> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina

( (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 2, 2024.

On July 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 3, 2024, 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 3, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On July 5, 2024, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on

the Complainant’s submission.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the the due date for Response was July 31, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 6, 2024.

The Center appointed Sok Ling Moi as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 2024. 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 cooperative of French traders-retailers specialised in the toy field and has used the

JOUECLUB brand in connection with children’s toys and games since 1952. The Complainant has an

internet presence and operates an e-commerce site hosted on the domain names <joueclub.fr> (registered
since September 11, 1997) and <joueclub.com> (registered since December 10, 2001). The JOUECLUB
network currently comprises 348 stores, including 300 in France.

The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for the JOUECLUB or JOUÉCLUB marks (the “JOUECLUB marks”) in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the following:

- French Trade Mark Registration No. 1227507 for JOUECLUB (stylised) in Class 28, registered on

February 15, 1983;

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 796389 for JOUÉCLUB (stylised) in Class 28, designating, among others, China, where the Respondent is located, registered on February 4, 2003;

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 013790779 for JOUÉCLUB (stylised) in Class 16, 28, 35 and 41, registered on October 22, 2015.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2024, long after the Complainant has used and
registered its trade mark JOUECLUB. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the
disputed domain name was not linked to an actual website, but was instead offered for sale for USD 1,450 or

for lease at USD 100 per month on a domain name trading platform.

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 is identical to its trade mark, as it incorporates JOUECLUB in its entirety;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

- the 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.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Issue - 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 specified 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 disputed domain name comprises Latin characters rather than Chinese characters.

The Respondent did not comment on the Complainant’s request for 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).

In this case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name comprises of the English word “club”.

The Panel further notes that the domain name trading platform to which the disputed domain name resolves contains English contents. Furthermore, the Respondent has been informed by the Center that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese, but it did not file a formal Response. As such, the Panel finds that no foreseeable procedural benefit may be served by requiring the Complaint to be translated into Chinese and for Chinese to be the language of the proceeding at this stage.

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 Issue - Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be transferred:

(i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark

or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first 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.

page 4

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain

name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” is a standard registration requirement and

does not impact on the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to

the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel finds the first 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 often 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

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 satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 2.1.

The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the JOUECLUB trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the JOUECLUB trade mark. The Respondent appears to be an individual by the name

of “吴清儒 (Wu Qing Ru)”. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the

name “JOUECLUB” or has any rights in the term “JOUECLUB”.

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.

The Panel finds 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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website

in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but is instead offered on a domain name trading

platform for sale for USD 1,450 or for lease for USD 100 per month, which may be in excess of the normal

costs for registering and maintaining a domain name. The Panel accepts that the Respondent is highly likely

to have registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the same to

the Complainant or one of its competitors for valuable consideration. The circumstances referred to in

paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy are applicable.

page 5

Furthermore, by registering the disputed domain name which is identical with the Complainant’s trade mark,

the Respondent is preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trade marks in the corresponding domain

name. The circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy are applicable, provided that the

respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The Panel notes that the Respondent has been the

respondent in a number of WIPO cases that resulted in a transfer of the domain names to the complainants

involved in those cases which indicates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusive domain

name registration against trade mark right holders. See e.g., Caffè Borbone S.r.l. v. 吴清儒 (Wu Qing Ru),

WIPO Case No. D2023-3320; Royal Leerdammer Leerdammer B.V. v.吴清儒 (Wu Qing Ru), WIPO Case

No. D2023-2979.

Having reviewed the available record, especially noting the distinctiveness and reputation of the

Complainant’s trade mark, as well as the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel accepts that

the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name cannot have been accidental and must have been

influenced by the fame of the Complainant and its trade marks.

The Panel finds 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 <joueclub.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sok Ling Moi/

Sok Ling Moi

Sole Panelist

Date: September 5, 2024