Posing as a lawyer at online domain auction platforms is a silly angle to bidding.
The Korean registrant of Chabe.com uses the handle “lawyer247” on various domain auction platforms, such as DropCatch. It must be fun to “scare off” other bidders!
In the case of Chabe.com, the UDRP was filed by Chabe Limousines SAS, France. The domain was auctioned off on DropCatch last August, closing at $776 dollars. Source: Namebio.
Established in 1921, the French Complainant provides chauffeur-driven limousines for hire worldwide. It has a presence in 50 airports worldwide, either directly or through a partner network. According to the UDRP, the Complainant owns French trade mark no. 4113691 for CHABE, filed on August 26, 2014, in classes 35, 38, 39, and 42.
The Respondent emailed the WIPO in response to the initial contact; the Korean message can be roughly translated as: “Proceed in Korean. Please contact me via [email address starting “lawyer247”]. This is an unused email address.”
From there on, the sole WIPO panelist found no reason why the domain should remain with the Respondent: It matches the Complainant’s trademark, isn’t used for a bona fide purpose, and the supposed lawyer sought more than $10,000 dollars for it.
Final decision: transfer the domain to the Complainant.
Chabe Limousines SAS v. Yunkook Jung, Beats4
Case No. D2020-34351. The Parties
The Complainant is Chabe Limousines SAS, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Yunkook Jung, Beats4, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <chabe.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 16, 2020. On December 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 2020, 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 January 4, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 24, 2021.
The Respondent emailed the Center on January 4, 2021. The email is in Korean and the Panel understands that it can be roughly translated as: “Proceed in Korean. Please contact me via [email address starting “lawyer247”]. This is an unused email address.” The Center responded on January 6, 2021, pointing out that English was the language of the proceeding and that the email address provided would be included in any future email communications concerning the case.
The Respondent did not file a Response or further communicate with the Center on the language issue or otherwise and the Center commenced the panel appointment process on January 27, 2021.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on February 22, 2021. 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, which was established in 1921, offers chauffeur-driven limousines for hire worldwide. It has a presence in 50 airports worldwide, either directly or through a partner network.
The Complainant owns French trade mark no. 4113691 for CHABE, filed on August 26, 2014, in classes 35, 38, 39, and 42.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 22, 2020.
The disputed domain name has been used for a parking page with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links relating to assorted goods and services including “Bajit Private Jet Cost”.
The disputed domain name was listed for sale on Afternic, a domain name marketplace. On September 4, 2020, the Complainant contacted the Respondent via Afternic to ascertain the price of the disputed domain name. Afternic responded to say that the seller was seeking offers in excess of USD 10,000.
On September 11, 2020, the Complainant emailed Afternic to assert a legal claim against the Respondent, and also offering USD 500 for the disputed domain name. Afternic responded the same day to say that the seller had already removed the listing and that the Complainant should contact the seller directly.
The Complainant followed up with legal letters by email to the Respondent on September 11 and 16, 2020, but there was no response.
On September 25, 2020, the Complainant became aware that the Respondent had offered the disputed domain name for sale via Sedo, which removed the disputed domain name from its service on the Complainant’s request.
The Respondent has been found to have registered and used other domain names in bad faith in previous UDRP cases including Linatex Limited v. Yunkook Jung, WIPO Case No. D2019-1784.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The following is a summary of the Complainant‘s contentions.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Chabe” or that it owns any trade mark or other rights in the name.
The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its name or to register the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor has it made legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trade marks and business when it registered the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s prior trade marks. The word “chabe” is not a dictionary or common term in French, English, or Korean and there is no other reasonable explanation for the Respondent’s choice of this name. The first results for Google searches against this name all relate to the Complainant.
The factual background set out above demonstrates that the disputed domain name can only have been registered for the purpose of sale to the Complainant or a competitor. In particular, the Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a price in excess of USD 10,000.
Use of the disputed domain name for a parking page including a link to private jet services is further evidence of bad faith, as both private jets and limousine hire are luxurious means of transport which involve a private driver. It is also relevant that the contact form is in French, corresponding to the nationality of the Complainant.
The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting behaviour.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Under the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
– the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;
– 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark “Chabe” by virtue of its registered trade mark mentioned above.
Disregarding the domain name suffix, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests.
As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name has been used for a parking page with PPC links relating to a range of goods and services without any obvious legitimate connection with the disputed domain name, including private jet hire. Whether or not the latter is treated as competing with or more likely as related to the services supplied by the Complainant (as the Complainant contends), such use of the disputed domain name is not of itself sufficient to confer rights or legitimate interests.
Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes the following:
1. The Complainant’s name “Chabe” is by all appearances a distinctive, made-up, term.
2. It is therefore difficult to conceive of any legitimate purpose for the Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name.
3. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s pre-action communications, or to the Complaint, to explain why it selected the disputed domain name, or to dispute the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith.
4. Albeit in a response to an initial enquiry by the Complainant, the Respondent has sought a price of over USD 10,000 for the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding to attempt to justify such a valuation on grounds independent of the Complainant and its trade mark.
5. The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting activity, having been found in previous UDRP cases to have registered and used other domain names in bad faith.
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that it has therefore established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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, <chabe.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: March 8, 2020
