Westmore · UDRP DecisionPanavision-china.com
The Panel ordered transfer of panavision-china.com after finding that it was confusingly similar to the PANAVISION trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain name had been registered and used in bad faith. The domain combined PANAVISION with the geographic term “China” and resolved to a Chinese-language website displaying a banner for an online betting company above content related to a Chinese court.
The timeline behind panavision-china.com
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 panavision-china.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a distinctive mark combined with a country name can reinforce an apparent official geographic association rather than avoid confusing similarity. It also shows how unrelated commercial advertising, particularly when paired with incongruous website content, can undermine claimed legitimacy and support bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).
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 Panavision International, L.P., Panavision Inc. v. Tongyue Wu Case No. D2018-2473 1. The Parties The Complainants are Panavision International, L.P. (the “First Complainant”) and Panavision Inc. (the “Second Complainant”), both of Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Tongyue Wu of Jilin, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <panavision-china.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 30, 2018. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 1, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, providing the contact details and confirming that the language of the Registration Agreement is English. 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 November 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 3, 2018. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on December 12, 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 Complainants and their affiliates are one of the world’s most recognized providers of ultra-precision digital imaging and visual cinematographic equipment, including cameras, optical lenses, photographic equipment, lighting, and accessories. The Complainants and their affiliates provide a suite of production and post-production services to studios, networks, independent production companies and over-the-top content streaming providers and social media platforms. Currently, the Complainants provide equipment and services in many countries around the world, including China. Since at least as early as 1954, the Complainants (and their predecessors) have continuously used the PANAVISION mark in connection with motion picture cameras, lenses, and related goods and services. The First Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for PANAVISION including United States trademark registration number 834,705 registered on September 5, 1967, specifying certain motion picture cameras and lenses therefor in class 9, and Chinese trademark registration number 349580, registered on May 30, 1989, specifying goods in class 11. Those trademark registrations remain current. The Complainants also operate an official website at www.panavision.com (registered on February 11, 1998) where they promote their digital imaging and cinematographic equipment and related products. The Respondent is an individual resident in China. The disputed domain name was created on July 9, 2018. It resolves to a website in Chinese displaying a banner incorporating a website address and trade name of an online betting company. The content of the website is related to an intermediate People’s Court of China. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name wholly incorporates and is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ PANAVISION mark. The addition of “China” does not reduce the likelihood of confusion but rather increases it because the Complainants operate throughout China. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. The Complainants have not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of their trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of those marks. The Respondent does not appear to have any legitimate trademark, service mark or other intellectual property rights in or to the PANAVISION mark or any similar marks. The disputed domain name is used to lure consumers to an impostor’s site. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent plainly knew of the Complainants’ long and continuous use of its PANAVISION mark at the time of registration and that it had no right, title or interest, whatsoever, in these marks or the disputed domain name. The Respondent adopted and continues to use the disputed domain name for the illegal and improper purpose of (i) illegally trading upon the Complainants’ goodwill to confuse, mislead, deceive and divert customers; and (ii) intentionally tarnishing and diluting the Complainants’ valuable and well-known trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Multiple Complainants The Complaint was filed by two complainants against a single respondent. Both Complainants form part of the same corporate group as the First Complainant is a subsidiary of the Second Complainant. The First Complainant owns the PANAVISION trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainants have a common grievance against the Respondent and that it is efficient to permit the consolidation of their complaints. Therefore, the Complainants are referred to below collectively as “the Complainant” except as otherwise indicated. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (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 Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the PANAVISION trademark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s PANAVISION trademark as its initial element. After that trademark, the disputed domain name includes the country name “China”, separated by a hyphen. However, as a mere geographical term, that element is not capable of dispelling confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark. See Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Zeynel Demirtas , WIPO Case No. D2007-0768 . The only other element in the disputed domain name is the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. A gTLD suffix is generally incapable of preventing confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See Lego Juris A /S v. Chen Yong , WIPO Case No. D2009-1611 ; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei , WIPO Case No. D2014-0080 . Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that a respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel has already found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PANAVISION trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays a website address and trade name of an online betting company. The Complainant submits that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of those marks. Accordingly, the Panel does not consider this to be a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and there is no evidence of any demonstrable preparations to do so, within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i). The Respondent’s name is “Tongyue Wu” and there is no evidence that he has been commonly known as “Panavision-china” or even “Panavision” within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(ii). The disputed domain name is being used in connection with a website that displays a banner for an online betting company, above a webpage with content related to a court of law. The Panel does not find that to be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii). In view of the above circumstances, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to rebut that case because he did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.” The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in July 2018, many years after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations, including in China, where the Respondent is resident. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s PANAVISION trademark, which is not a dictionary word. The Complainant has acquired a considerable reputation in its trademark through use and promotion, including in China, where the Respondent is resident. The disputed domain name combines the Complainant’s PANAVISION trademark with a hyphen and the country name “China”, giving the impression that the disputed domain name was to be used in connection with a Chinese website associated with the Complainant. The Panel finds it implausible that this was a coincidence and is persuaded that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in PANAVISION at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website displaying a banner incorporating a website address and trade name of an online betting company. Given these facts, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on that website. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in 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 <panavision-china.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Matthew Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: December 14, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around panavision-china.com
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.