Zenlen, Inc. v zhujie

WIPO Case No. D2025-0158

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Zenlen, Inc. v. zhujie

Case No. D2025-0158

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Zenlen, Inc., United States of America, represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, United

States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is zhujie, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <nativecleanskin.com> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January
15, 2025. On January 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 17, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 21,
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 January 23, 2025.

On January 21, 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 January 23, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 17, 2025. Accordingly, the Center notified

the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2025. Due to an apparent issue with the notification, on February
20, 2025, the Center granted the Respondent until February 25, 2025, to indicate whether the Respondent

would like to participate to this proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any communication.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2025. 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 produces and sells beauty products including deodorants, body wash, moisturizing lotion,
hair care products and skincare products under the brand NATIVE. The tag line it uses is “Clean. Simple.

Effective” (the “Tagline”).

The Complainant has trade mark registrations for NATIVE including the following:

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 5691499 for NATIVE registered on March 5, 2019;

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 5440967 for NATIVE registered on April 10, 2018; and

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 5783529 for NATIVE registered on June 18, 2019.

(individually and collectively, the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant owns the domain name <nativecos.com> through which its goods are offered.

The Respondent, who appears to be located in China, registered the disputed domain name on June 6, 2024. The disputed domain name is connected to a website which displays the Trade Mark prominently, mimics the Complainant’s own website including using its copyrighted images without authorization, using the Tagline and purports to sell the Complaint’s products (‘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 is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was 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 Preliminary 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

page 3

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 the following main reasons:

- The disputed domain name comprises English words and the Website is in English indicating that the Respondent is familiar with the English language;

- The Website says that the Respondent ships worldwide and accepts payments in USD indicating that the Respondent is purporting to do business globally and thus should understand English as it is the primary language of international business and trade;

- The Respondent has been involved in a previous UDRP case (Ballet Makers, Inc. v zhujie, WIPO

Case No. D2024-4734) where the Panel determined that English was the language of the proceeding for the reasons stated above.

- Conducting the proceeding in Chinese would be an unfair burden on the Complainant as it would be cumbersome and disadvantageous and cause unnecessary delay.

The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s language request and in fact has failed to file a response in either English or Chinese despite being duly notified by the Center in both English and Chinese of the language of the proceeding and of the commencement 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.

6.2 Substantive Issues

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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds 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.

While the addition of the words “clean” and “skin” after the Trade Mark may bear on assessment of the
second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the words does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

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.

While 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 often-impossible 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. 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.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the 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.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading as it effectively impersonates or
suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant particularly since it includes the words “clean
skin” which suggest an association with the Complainant’s goods given that “clean” is one of the words of the

Complainant’s Tagline and the word, “skin” is directly descriptive of Complainant’s products.

Based on the available record, 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 Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Mark when he registered the disputed domain name given the Trade Mark was registered prior to registration of the disputed domain name and the use of the Trade Mark and the Tagline on the Website. It is therefore implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.

In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:

“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in
circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a
respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers),
panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should
have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further
factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,
or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s

mark.”

The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with the Respondent’s choice
of the disputed domain name without any explanation is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1). The disputed domain name falls into the category stated above and the
Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.

page 5

The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith. The unauthorised use of the images from the Complainant’s website, the Trade Mark and the Tagline are clear indications of use for potentially illegitimate activity. In fact, the Complainant alleged that it initiated a test purchase on December 6, 2024, for certain goods offered for sale on the Website. Although payment was made and accepted in United States Dollars, the goods in question have never been received. The Complainant did not provide any evidence of this.

The Website prominently displays the Trade Mark, without any disclaimer disclosing (the lack of) relationship between the Parties. The content of the Website is calculated to give the impression it has been authorized by or connected to the Complainant when this is not the case. The Website was set up to deliberately

mislead Internet users into believing that it is connected to, authorised by, or affiliated with the Complainant. commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s Website was, and the services offered on it are those of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant.

It is highly likely that Internet users when typing the disputed domain name into their browser or finding it through a search engine would have been looking for a site operated by the Complainant rather than the Respondent. The disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users trying to find the Complainant’s

official website. Such confusion will inevitably result due to the fact that the disputed domain name
comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety along with related terms to the Complainant’s business.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <nativecleanskin.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: March 18, 2025