WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Thomas Pink Limited v. Song Guangxiu Case No. D2019-0104 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Thomas Pink Limited of London, United Kingdom, represented by K&L Gates, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Song Guangxiu of China, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with 22net, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2019. On January 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 21, 2019, 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 January 22, 2019, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on the same day. The Respondent submitted an informal email in Chinese on January 25, 2019, but 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment on February 18, 2019.

The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on February 22, 2019. 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 a luxury shirt designer, manufacturer and retailer founded in London in 1984 known internationally by its distinctive THOMAS PINK trade mark. The Complainant has over 80 stores worldwide and is a part of the LVMH group, with flagship stores in Jermyn Street in London, Madison Avenue in New York, and Rue Francois Premier in Paris. The Complainant’s stores can be found in Australia, United Kingdom, France, Mexico, India, Ireland, South Africa, and United States of America.

The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for THOMAS PINK in the following jurisdictions:

Jurisdiction

Mark

Registration No.

Registration Date

Class No.

United Kingdom

THOMAS PINK

UK00003005481

September 20, 2013

3, 14, 18, 24, 25, 35

International designating China, European Union, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Japan and United States of America, etc.

THOMAS PINK

1187097

May 10, 2013

3, 14, 18, 24, 25, 35

The Complainant also owns the following domain name which it uses to link to its official website.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2014. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage featuring several links to third party websites purporting to sell men’s shirts, with a banner at the top of the webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trade mark THOMAS PINK, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests for the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted an informal email in Chinese on January 25, 2019, but did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding

Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless 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.

Paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and that the Parties are treated equitably and given a fair opportunity to present their respective cases.

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. From the evidence on record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language issue. The Complainant filed its Complaint in English and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not respond on the issue of the language of the proceeding.

The Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that:

(a) the disputed domain name is registered in Latin characters, rather than Chinese script,

(b) the Respondent has provided an address in the United States of America to the Registrar,

(c) according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent’s registered address provided to the Registrar contains a note in English which states “contact us in English” (see Annex 1 of the Complaint), and

(d) the website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains contents entirely in English.

Additionally, the Panel notes that:

(a) the Center has notified the Respondent of the proceeding in both Chinese and English,

(b) the Respondent has been given the opportunity to present its case in this proceeding, and

(b) the Center has informed the Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.

Considering the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both Parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the Parties in its ability to