WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CrossFit, Inc. v. Nexperian Holding Limited / Tian Yu Yan Case No. D2018-1401 1. The Parties

The Complainant is CrossFit, Inc. of Washington D.C., United States of America (“USA” or “United States”), represented by Swanson & Bratschun, LLC, USA.

The Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China / Tian Yu Yan of Shandong, China, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 22, 2018. On June 25, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 26, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 27, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 29, 2018.

On June 27, 2018, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent submitted an informal email in Chinese on June 28, 2018, but did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on June 29, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 4, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 24, 2018. On July 5, 2018, July 7, 2018 and July 8, 2018, the Respondent submitted four further emails in Chinese. On July 23, 2018, the Respondent requested to extend the due date for Response for four days. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties the due date for Response was extended to July 28, 2018. The informal Response was filed with the Center on July 28, 2018.

The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on August 2, 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, CrossFit, Inc., is a company incorporated in California, USA, that provides services for, and sells goods related to a fitness training program under the CROSSFIT registered trademark. The Complainant is a company active internationally in the fitness training sector. The Complainant has over 13,000 licensed affiliates throughout the world, including a substantial affiliate network across China, where the Respondent resides.

The Complainant claims it is the owner of numerous CROSSFIT trademarks worldwide, including:

- United States trademark registration no. 3007458, registered on October 18, 2005,

- China trademark registration no. 6962397, registered on October 7, 2010,

- China trademark registration no. 19471707, registered on May 7, 2017,

- United States trademark registration no. 5230799, registered on June 27, 2017,

- China trademark registration no. 20387413A, registered on September 21, 2017, and

- United States trademark registration no. 5355314, registered on December 12, 2017.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2014, and resolves to a website selling goods in competition with those of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions include the following:

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark CROSSFIT as the disputed domain name incorporates entirely the CROSSFIT trademark and only differs from the CROSSFIT trademark by a descriptive word, “good”. The Complainant argues that it has rights in the CROSFIT mark dating from no later than the year 2006 through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and has registered trademarks rights in China since 2010. The Complainant also argues that it has continuously used the CROSSFIT trademark and its domain name prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, therefore establishing common law rights in the mark.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 5, 2014, long after the Complainant registered the CROSSFIT trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2005 and long after the Complainant began using its CROSSFIT trademark in 1985. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor is the Respondent authorized to use the CROSSFIT trademark for any purpose. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not commonly known as “Good Crossfit” since the name at the top of the Respondent’s website is “Rizhao Good Fitness”.

The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has attempted to intentionally attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CROSSFIT trademark as the source of the website or of a product or service on that website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name containing the identical CROSSFIT trademark to capitalize on consumer recognition of the CROSSFIT trademark as it is we