Sese.com

The timeline behind sese.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TRANS SESÉ, S.L. v. 陈财贵 (Chen Cai Gui) Case No. D2023-4283 1. The Parties The Complainant is TRANS SESÉ, S.L., Spain, represented by ABG Intellectual Pro p erty Law, S.L., Spain. The Respondent is 陈财贵 (Chen Cai Gui), China, represented by 企发发知识产权服务有限公司, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sese.com> is registered with eName Technology Co ., Ltd. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2023. On October 16, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Unavailable) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 17, 2023 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint in English and its Chinese translation on October 22, 2023. On October 17, 2023, the Center inf ormed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement f or the disputed domain name is Chinese. On October 20, 2023, the Complainant submitted the Chinese translation of the Complaint, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent submitted a request on October 22, 2023, requesting that Chinese be the language of the proceeding. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), t he Rules f o r Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notif ied the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 25, 2023. In accordance with page 2 the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 14, 2023. The Response was f iled with the Center on November 14, 2023. The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on November 21, 2023. The Panel f inds 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, domiciled in Spain, is a f amily owned business since 1965. In 1965, the f ounder, Alfonso Sesé Tena, started a business for the transportation of goods by road. 30 years later, in 1995, Alfonso Sesé and his sister, Ana Sesé grew the business on the back of their f ather’s achievements with the opening of international locations and diversif ied the business beyond road transport into logistics and industrial services. In the Complaint, the Complainant provided information of its proprietary ownership of only the following f our trade mark registrations – and this is for two dif f erent trade mark versions incorporating the name “sesé”, namely: (a) (SESÉ wo rd mark in colour) (b ) (GRUPO SESÉ & lion head device mark) Jurisdiction Trade Mark Class Registration No. Filing Date European Unio n SESÉ wo rd mark in colour 35, 37, 39, 41 018887084 June 12, 2023 Brazil GRUPO SESÉ & lion head device mark 39 913788317 November 26, 2017 United Kingdom GRUPO SESÉ & lion head device mark 35, 39, 41 UK00917503665 November 22, 2017 European Unio n GRUPO SESÉ & lion head device mark 35, 39, 41 017503665 November 22, 2017 (In Annex 11, the Complainant furnished evidence of a f ew additional trade mark registrations, but as the contents were entirely in Spanish and not translated into English (despite the Complainant requesting English to be the language of the proceeding), the Panel is not able to understand and tak e into account. In any event, it appears that none of these registrations pre-date 2011.) The Complainant also owns and operates its of f ic ial website through the domain name <gruposese.com> to promote its business activities: page 3 The disputed domain name was registered on December 6, 1999, while its ownership was transf erred to the Respondent on July 30, 2015. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name redirected to “www.haoqq.com” (an English language parking website with many links). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trad e mark, as it incorporates the trade mark SESÉ in its entirety (minus f or some marks, the term “grupo”); - 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 f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent contends that: - the Complainant’s registered trad e mark rights were f or the composite mark which is not conf usingly similar to “sese” appearing in the disputed domain name; - the Respondent had spent substantial s um s of money in purchasing the disputed domain name in 2015 and developing the website, and thus has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; - the Complainant’s earliest trade mark registration was f iled in 2017, which is later than the date of original registration of the disputed domain name in 1999, and also later than the date of (acquisition) transf er of the disputed domain name to the Respondent in 2015; - the term “sese” may represent the Chinese pinyin equivalent of various Chinese words such as “ 色色”（which means “lust”), and it is valuable as a “CVCV” type domain name; an Internet search using Baidu did not disclose any results relating to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural 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 in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English followed by a Chinese translation. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons. The Respondent requested that t he language of the proceeding be Chinese, claiming that he is a Chinese national living in China in which Chinese is the main language. page 4 In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the reg istratio n 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). Although the Respondent appears to be a Chinese individual, the Panel f inds prima facie evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes t hat the disputed domain name comprises only Latin characters rather than Chinese characters; and that it redirected to an English language website “www.haoqq.com”. The Respondent has conf irmed the domain name <haoqq.com> is owned by him (Annex 3 to the Response). The Panel f urther notes that the Center has inf ormed the Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is f air to both Parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the P art i es in its ability to articulate the arguments for this case. 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 Issue – Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the f ollowing three elements to obtain an order f or the disputed domain name to be transf erred: (i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or conf usingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (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 f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element f unctions 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. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trade mark SESÉ for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name despite the accent. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that the Complainant d id not have (or if it does, does not provide evidence of such) registered trad e mark rig hts in respect of the name “sesé” as at the date of registration of the disputed domain name (i.e., on December 6, 1999 or July 30, 2015). Given that the Complainant was founded in 1965, if there was evidence of trade mark rights (registered or otherwise) from prior to 1999 o r 2015 for that matter, it would be incumbent on the Complainant to provide evidence of this in its Complaint – it does not, and merely suggests in a conclusory manner that if the Respondent had searched the Internet it would have f ound the page 5 Complainant, and since the disputed domain name is f or sale, the Complainant must have been the Respondent’s target. The Complainant’s name is “TRANS SESÉ, S.L.” and it has been using the domain name <gruposese.com> f or its official website to promote its business activities. The Panel notes that the term “sesé” is a common Spanish surname and if used in such capacity may be lacking in d istinctiveness. The burden of proof is on the Complainant to establish that through its use and promotion, the term “sesé” has acquired a secondary meaning such that the relevant public wo uld view it as a badge of origin exclusively associated with the Complainant’s business. However, the Complainant did not f urnish any clear date-specif ic evidence (whether in the f orm of annual revenue, annual marketing expenditure, advertising and promotional materials, media recognition, or industry accolades) to show that it has acquired common law or unregistered rights in respect of the name “sesé” as at 1999 when the disputed domain name was f irst registered, or at 2015 when the disputed domain name was acquired by the Respondent. All said, the Complaint contains a series of conclusory statements which are not supported by evidence and which do not even add up to allowing the Panel to draw an inference of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. In the absence of clear convincing evidence, the pref erence would be to preserve status quo taking into account the relative prejudice to the parties. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has f ailed to establish the third element of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Th e Panel’s above f inding would be suf f icient to dispose of the matter and there would be no need to address the second element. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Sok Ling MOI/ Sok Ling MOI Sole Panelist Date: December 17, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.