Westmore · UDRP DecisionDessange.xyz
The Panel ordered transfer of <dessange.xyz>. It found the domain identical to the Complainant’s DESSANGE trademark, found no rights or legitimate interests after the Respondent failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, and concluded that the distinctive, apparently non-dictionary mark had been selected for its association with the Complainant and that the domain was registered primarily for sale or transfer to the Complainant or a competitor for consideration exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs.
The timeline behind dessange.xyz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind dessange.xyz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a transfer based on the combination of an exact-match domain, a distinctive term with no apparent dictionary meaning, a parking page offering the domain for sale, and an unanswered complaint. The Panel inferred a trademark-targeted sale purpose even though the published text did not specify an asking price or direct approach to the Complainant.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dessange International v. Wang Xin Zhong Case No. D2018-0548 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dessange International of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Wang Xin Zhong of “YBCXZZZZ”, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dessange.xyz> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2018. On March 13, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 14, 2018, 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 March 15, 2018, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 16, 2018, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. 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 of the Complaint in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on March 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 18, 2018. The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2018. 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 states it is a “well-known society” founded in 1954, specializing in hairstyling and hairdressing products and salons. It owns trade marks comprising the word DESSANGE including International Registration Nos. 1077565 (registration date: April 15, 2011), 1026293 (registration date: October 26, 2009) and 822605 (registration date: March 11, 2004). The Complainant owns domain name registrations for <dessange-usa.com> (registered on November 27, 2013), <dessange.com> (registered on October 30, 1997) and <dessange.net> (registered on June 22, 2000). The disputed domain name was registered on November 10, 2017. It resolves to a parking page and is offered for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DESSANGE trade mark. The disputed domain name contains the DESSANGE trade mark in its entirety. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” does not suffice to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark. 2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no business relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the DESSANGE trade mark or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has also not made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. 3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. A Google search on the word “dessange” displays several results which are related to the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page which shows that the Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to prevent the Complainant from registering it and to reflect its trade mark in a domain name. 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 registration agreement is in Chinese. According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, 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”. The Complainant requested for English to apply. The Complainant pointed out that English is the most widely used language in international relations and one of the working languages of the Center. Having to translate the Complaint into Chinese would involve additional expense and be a burden to the Complainant. The Respondent did not respond on the issue of the language of the proceeding. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules stipulates that “[t]he Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. The Panel is mindful of the need to balance the interests of the parties and to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition. Having considered the elements making up the disputed domain name and the language of the parking page to which the disputed domain name resolves, a substantial portion of which is in English, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent is sufficiently familiar with the English language and would not be prejudiced by the Panel’s decision for English to apply as the language of the proceeding. The Respondent has been notified of the nature and substance of the proceeding in Chinese and could have responded in Chinese. It did not do so despite the opportunities afforded in the course of the proceeding. To have the Complaint translated into English would invariably lead to a delay in the proceeding, which does not appear to be merited in this case. The Panel therefore determines that it would be appropriate for English to be the language of the proceeding. 6.2. Substantial Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the DESSANGE trade mark which the Complainant has rights to. The trade mark has been incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The gTLD is a technical requirement of domain name registrations and is not a relevant factor when considering the issue of whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade mark. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been established by the Complainant. The Respondent has not filed any response to rebut the Complainant’s assertions. There is nothing upon which the Panel can find for the Respondent, since there is no evidence that the Respondent owns trade mark rights in DESSANGE or has been commonly known by that name. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP provides that the following circumstances, if found to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and the use of a domain name in bad faith: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” The circumstances of this case show that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant or a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. There is no apparent reason for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name other than for this purpose, since “dessange” does not appear to have any generic or dictionary meaning. The word “dessange” is therefore distinctive in nature and was selected by the Respondent because of its trade mark significance and association with the Complainant. The Panel also draws an adverse inference from the failure of the Respondent to respond to the proceeding notwithstanding the communications sent by the Center in Chinese. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been satisfied. 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 <dessange.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: May 2, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around dessange.xyz
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.