[ad_1]
[UPDATED] The UDRP filed against the domain SQualify.com was based on a trademark registered in 2023 by German company, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft. The domain was registered before the mark’s registration, but the Chinese registrant represented themselves and failed to secure a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The WIPO panelist focused on the fact that the domain was parked with PPC content and offered for sale, which is a legitimate use of any domain. The final decision was to deny the transfer of SQualify.com with no finding of RDNH.
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in München v. Shun Wang
Case No. D2023-3622
The Parties
The Complainant is Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in München, Germany, represented by Lorenz Seidler Gossel, Germany. The Respondent is Shun Wang, China, self-represented.
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name squalify.com is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) in English on August 29, 2023. On August 29, 2023, the Center requested registrar verification from the Registrar for the disputed domain name. On August 30, 2023, the Registrar confirmed the Respondent’s registration details. The Center verified that the Complaint complied with the requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the Rules for UDRP, and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for UDRP. The Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on September 13, 2023. The due date for the Response was initially October 3, 2023, but it was extended to October 7, 2023, at the Respondent’s request. The Response was filed in Chinese on October 6, 2023. The Respondent also requested that the language of the proceeding be Chinese, but the Panel determined that the proceeding would be conducted in English.
Factual Background
The Complainant is a reinsurance company incorporated in Germany and owns the European Union trademark registration for the mark SQUALIFY. The disputed domain name was registered before the Complainant’s trademark registration. The domain is currently redirected to the Respondent’s video sharing account on Douyin and was previously offered for sale on a website called Bodis.
Complainant’s Contentions
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent’s Contentions
The Respondent acknowledges that the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant’s trademark but argues that it was registered before the Complainant’s trademark application proceeded to registration. The Respondent claims to have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and denies any bad faith registration or use. The Respondent also suggests that the Complainant filed the Complaint in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Discussion and Findings
The Panel determines that the language of the proceeding will be English, even though the Respondent requested Chinese. The Complainant has rights in the trademark, regardless of the timing of its registration in relation to the domain name registration. The disputed domain name is similar to the trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has not proven that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel also finds that the Complainant has not proven bad faith registration or use of the domain name. The Panel does not find evidence of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Conclusion
The Panel denies the transfer of the domain name squalify.com and finds no Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
[ad_2]
Original Source News Link
