WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION WEDIA SA v. Office Yui Asia Limited Case No. D2018-2083 1. The Parties

The Complainant is WEDIA SA of Paris, France, represented internally.

The Respondent is Office Yui Asia Limited of Fujisawa, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 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.

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. The complaint sent by courier was received and signed for by the Respondent. The proceedings commenced on September 25, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 16, 2018.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 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 is incorporated in France and listed on Euronext Growth Paris and carries on the business of providing software solutions and services for marketing and communication stakeholders. 67.6 per cent of the Complainant’s sales are in France.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks in the name WEDIA, including French trademark No. 3388100 registered in 2005 and an international trademark No. 1413741 registered with effect from 2018 in various countries. Notably, however, the Complainant has no trade mark registrations in Japan.

Since 2007, the Complainant has been the owner of the domain name and also owns other domain names incorporating the trademark WEDIA.

The Respondent is a Japanese corporation with its registered business address in Kanagawa, Japan.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 15, 1997, which resolves to a website that since 2013 has been inactive except for a notice to customers advising of the cessation the whole of its business. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name contains its registered trademark WEDIA in full so that the public may believe that the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant.

No rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not own the trademark WEDIA, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no rights or legitimate interests in the trademark WEDIA.

The Complainant also submits that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise granted permission to the Respondent to make use of its WEDIA trademark or the disputed domain name.

Registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name disrupts the Complainant’s business because it resolves to a website that displays a business cessation notice and this can therefore make a potential customer believe that the Complainant has ceased business.

The Complainant further submits that as the disputed domain name has been inactive since 2013, but the contact information for the Respondent is either incorrect or inactive, this shows the Respondent has no intention to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s conten